I have explained several times, including Why you should vote no on Prop. 123, then kick every lawless Tea-Publican out of office and You keep using that word ‘immediately.’ I don’t think it means what you think it means., that Prop. 123 simply trades the current lawsuit for a new lawsuit(s).
The result will be that the school districts will not see an immediate infusion of money as Prop. 123 is being litigated in court.
Today The Arizona Republic has a good “explainer” piece on this topic. Prop. 123 could end 1 lawsuit, start another. It’s worth a read.
The Republic’s E.J. Montini continues to rail against the scam of Prop. 123. The hocus-pocus illusion of Prop. 123’s ‘guarantees’:
We all know that magic tricks aren’r real, right?
The lady isn’t really sawed in half. The magician doesn’t actually levitate.
Likewise, the “guarantees” touted by the supporters of Proposition 123 … aren’t.
They’re more like very firm … suggestions.
They give a lot of leeway to the lawmakers, who for years have ignored the will of the voters from when Proposition 301 was passed in 2000. It lets them off the hook for purposefully disregarding that voter-approved law.
If they got away with it that time, why not again?
And while the Prop. 123 sounds like a lot of money it only amounts to about half of what lawmakers were supposed to already have used to fund education.
And it has these tricky little triggers in it. For instance, should funding for K-12 education reach 49 percent of the general fund – poof! — all bets are off.
No more obligation to use the Prop. 123 funds for education.
How would that happen?
Well, education funding already takes a big bite of the general fund and if Gov. Doug Ducey keeps reducing corporate tax rates the state’s piggy bank will have less money it and the percentage used for education will rise until – abracadabra – no more Prop. 123 money.
The Legislature also can alter the deal if the payout from the trust fund lessens the value of the trust fund. Or if the state’s sales tax revenue and employment rate don’t increase by more than 2 percent.
On the other hand, if the proposition fails in the election the court case (which lawmakers have been losing) would kick back in. Gov. Ducey then could (and should) convene a special session to fund education, using some of the $500 million surplus the state has.
On the other hand, if the proposition passes, there’s a chance there will be a lawsuit saying it violates what is called the state’s enabling act. That could tie up the money.
And it should.
Prop. 123 is political sleight of hand. It’s like your boss giving you a “raise” from your own retirement fund. Only this money belongs to our kids.
And after the 10 years of skimming off the state land trust, when the proposition money runs out, well, the governor and most current lawmakers won’t be around.
Not their problem.
So this is an election, ultimately, about trust.
Do you trust lawmakers to do the right thing with this money?
Or will it be like one of those old-fashioned magic shows:
Now you see it … now you don’t.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I get the picture, it’s basically a no brainer. I just would like to see some TV adds that can put it in simple terms with in 30 seconds then air them right after all of those slick pro 123 adds. As clean and slick as they are you’d think that was enough to tell voters they are getting fleeced.
If you start with $100, and you are making 2% a year on your investments, and you take out 6.9% of your nest egg, after ten years you have about $45 left.
Except that the state trust is fed by both interest AND revenue from new land sales. In addition, Property 123 suspends withdrawals, if the fund’s balance goes down.
Senator,
It would be helpful for us to have a detailed financial statement of the State Land Trust. I went to the website and only found one brief mention of revenue. Land sales are one time events, not the same as earning interest on cash accounts.
It is interesting that every former State Treasurer, except for Doug Ducey, opposes Proposition 123.