Arizona Freedom Caucus’ position on suspending AEL parallels D.C. Republican House position on raising Debt Ceiling

Arizona Freedom Caucus’ reluctance to suspend the Aggregate Expenditure Limit (AEL) closely resembles D.C. House Republicans’ reluctance to raise the Debt Ceiling.  Is it pure coincidence? Or, is it indicative of a nationwide effort of a Republican plan to obstruct Democrats’ efforts to help support working families and fully fund our public schools? The later seems to be more accurate.

An effort to privatize public education through vouchers/ESA expansion is happening nationwide. Outside interests are clouding the decision making process of local representatives who aren’t following the will of the people, but are furthering a wider national effort to systematically defund public schools to the point of ruin.  To shift public taxpayers’ funds meant for public schools into private, for profit, charter schools on one hand and on another hand criticize poor performance scores, is unfair as proper funding directly impacts overall performance. Additionally, since its inception in 1980, the AEL further restricts public schools from accessing their full funding budget. This funding model needs revisited, similarly to raising the debt ceiling in Washington D.C.

It’s encouraging that a bipartisan legislative committee voted in favor of raising the AEL and will send the bill to the full Arizona House for consideration.  We need to fully fund our public schools in order to ensure a strong, thriving  economy that serves ALL Arizonans and doesn’t bow to outside political aims.

1 thought on “Arizona Freedom Caucus’ position on suspending AEL parallels D.C. Republican House position on raising Debt Ceiling”

  1. Very good point. This sort of political brinksmanship to try to achieve a terribly unpopular result is characteristic of a political movement that doesn’t care about creating policy that serves the public, only outcomes that serve their political messaging to a very narrow minority wanting radical and detrimental outcomes.

Comments are closed.