Proposition 123 (2016)

I despise Twitter, so I do not have an account. But if I did I would reply to this Tweet this way:

AZ BlueMeanie

Fred Duval, blink three times if Governor Ducey is holding you hostage. Another victim of Stockholm Syndrome?

First of all, both Governor Ducey and Fred Duval are wealthy political elites who send their sons to private schools, citing the faith-based orientation of the schools. Governor hopefuls pick private schools for their kids. Ducey’s sons attend Brophy College Preparatory. DuVal sends his son to a pre-kindergarten school at All Saints Episcopal. Neither is directly impacted by Prop. 123.

Read more

Early voting in the May Special Election for Props. 123 and 124 is underway.

The Arizona Republic fka The Arizona Republican did its best to support Doug Ducey, the ice cream man hired by Koch Industries to run their Southwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Arizona, with a back-handed endorsement of Prop. 123. Prop. 123 isn’t a bad deal – it’s a good start:

Voters who support Proposition 123 should do so with the expectation that Ducey will aggressively push for additional funding for our schools. They should be prepared to demand it in no uncertain terms.

So vote yes and hope that the man who slashed education funding in his first budget, and the man who has not yet revealed the budget for this year being negotiated in secret behind closed doors with the GOP leadership, is suddenly going to have a Saul on the road to Damascus conversion (Acts 9:1-19) to becoming the champion of public education funding?

That’s asking for blind faith in a man who has demonstrated time and again that he is unworthy of such blind faith and trust.

Read more

Dianne Post, a Phoenix attorney, points out that Proposition 123, the school inflation adjustment funding settlement to our lawless Tea-Publican legislature’s illegal actions, is a misleading sham in an op-ed at the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required), Prop 123 – It’s not sustainable and it’s not a solution:

While many good-hearted people have encouraged supporting Prop. 123 because they claim it is a good start and injects badly needed money immediately into the classroom, unfortunately, they are wrong. First, there will be a lawsuit regarding whether or not the enabling act requires Congressional approval to implement the Proposition. During the lawsuit, which could take several years, no monies will be sent to classrooms.

This first point is so obvious that I am surprised by the supporters who claim that “we have to support Prop. 123 as a first step, because it’s the only way we can get money into the classrooms.” Former state Treasurer Dean Martin warned of this outcome in his testimony before the legislature on Prop. 123. K-12 funding plan advances despite treasurers’ criticism:

In his testimony, Martin warned senators that if the state hikes the trust-fund distribution to 6.9 percent from the current 2.5 percent, the higher distribution would erode the trust’s investment power for future schoolchildren. It also would violate the state’s Enabling Act, he said, and at the very least would need congressional approval for any distribution change.

* * *

The federal government granted Arizona 10.5 million acres of land at statehood, with the money from sales or leases earmarked for various beneficiaries, primarily public education. It is a perpetual trust, meaning it must be managed to the benefit of all recipients through the decades. Today, the state still holds 9.3 million of those acres.

Martin warned the plan lawmakers are considering would violate the trust’s long-standing rules and invite a court challenge. “You’re trying to settle an inflation lawsuit on education, and you’re going to end up with an inflation lawsuit on the trust fund,” he said.

Exactly! And classrooms will not see the money promised by Prop. 123.

Read more