Pretty interesting. The bottom line is that Arizona politicians defied the will of the people, and their solution is to make everyone pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, while pretending it's about something else entirely.
I am not actually sure what to make of the 49% cap. No state spends anywhere close to that, so I feel like there's something I am missing there. I am guessing it's 49% of some SUB-part of the entire state budget.
When I hear about things like this my blood boils. Some of these tax cuts are just state govt. lining their pockets. The funny thing is a lot of the 1% ultra wealthy have no problem paying more taxes because they know they are making a ridiculous amount of money that they will never be able to spend in their lifetime. I have heard a few of them say this publicly. The one guy I can remember saying this in public was Matt Damon. Have you had any petitioners come to your house to sign a petition to extend the federal bond that is supposed to fund public schools in California? I forgot the name of the proposition but everyone I know that is a teacher is signing it. After watching this video on prop 123 in AZ I wonder if there is a lot of hidden information not mentioned in California's petition for the proposition offering to extend the federal school bond.
I don't think it can be considered a theory. A farce comes to mind. But honestly that doesn't get it done either since we all see through it. It's just was a good idea that's been perverted by ego and type A beauty pageantry. If you get involved in your state representation, though, you can still find good people trying to be an actual representative.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...mistrust-could-hurt-proposition-123/82960144/ "We have to pass Prop 123 so you can see what's next." ~ paraphrasing Gov. Ducey
"The agreement of those triggers was part of reaching a settlement that both sides would agree to. If voters approve this on May 17, money begins to flow back into our schools. The education side needs guaranteed stability. The Legislature needs a mechanism to ease financial struggle during recession. At least we know for sure that inflation funding would be restored after we come out of recession." ~ Andrew Morrill, president of the Arizona Education Association, in support of the measure "Prop. 123 would allow the Legislature to avoid any increased funding for education if K-12 funding becomes 49 percent of the general fund. To put that in perspective, we’re now at 42. We know that the governor is planning to lower corporate taxes and eliminate income taxes in Arizona. Almost every budget expert that I talked to said that would mean decline in revenue, which would trigger the 49 percent. We look at these triggers as a really clever way that politicians that came up with for our students to pay for these tax cuts." ~ Morgan Abraham, a Tucson Realtor and chairman of the Vote No on Prop 123 committee "The use of the land endowment money is a balance of the immediate needs of students in our classroom right now. It’s a short, 10-year period of drawing more from the trust land endowment. The state lacks other funding sources, but the needs are very real. It allows the plaintiffs and the state to reach the settlement using a combination of general fund money and land endowment money. This was a set of terms that would put money into our schools and that both sides could live with." ~ Morrill "It’s pretty simple math. Prop. 123 changes the distribution rate from 2.5 to 6.9 percent. When you add 3 percent inflation, that means the purchasing power of the fund would decrease by 10 percent every year. You have the Joint Legislative Budget Committee projecting that the return of our fund would be 6.33 percent. So 10 percent, which is how much our fund is decreasing by, minus 6.33 percent equals 3.67 percent, which basically means our fund is decreasing by 3.67 percent every year. We’re using money that was already belonging to education and we’re spending it faster than it replenishes itself, which would have long-term consequences." ~ Abraham "If it succeeds, there’s immediate funding available to all public schools in Arizona.There is a certainty built into inflation funding year after year. There would be more money available for salaries, class-size management, structural support. It’s an immediate chance at relief. It’s not 100 percent relief, but it’s better than any other proposal that’s out there. If it fails, we will be providing nothing but more confusion and more uncertainty for our students, our teachers and our schools. We will have lost an opportunity for $3.5 billion into our schools." ~ Morrill "If this fails, the lawsuit would still be there. It would still be valid. We, along with most Arizonans, think that the lawsuit should be settled with $300 million from the state’s surplus funds. With the surplus, it seems that the state is planning corporate tax cuts. We feel that that money belongs to the students and the education community. The surplus is not a one-time deal. It’s an excess per budget year. The rainy day fund would be a one-time deal. Assuming that they don’t cut more taxes, we’re going to be running a surplus for the foreseeable future, and that money should be going to education." ~ Abraham ~ I am, of course, biased on this issue, but everything that comes out of Morrill's mouth seems to be a half-truth or outright ignoring reality to me.
The new budget has at least 26 million in tax cuts, including the following: $8 million for bonus depreciation for companies $7 million for a sales- and use-tax exemption for the sale of electricity or natural gas to manufacturing companies $350,000 to reclassify property leased or owned by for-profit universities at a lower property-tax rate $2.8 million to double the amount individuals and couples can claim in tax credits for donating to qualifying charities The budget also provides 32 million increase to Universities... 24 million more than what Gov Ducey proposed. Of course, this is after the 99 million cut last year.
It's amusing how the politicians can openly spit in people's face and tell them to basically ******** and that's just that. Recently a minister in Belgium was forced to resign after she tried to push a very fishy tax. People outraged. ***** got done.
This passed, by the way, by a narrow margin of 50.8% to 49.2%. Early voting had 55% yes, which is pretty interesting. I will report in later on what actually happens to the school budgets and whether this will actually have any impact on student resources and teacher salaries. So far, I have not heard anything that indicates as such on the ground level, tho statewide it does mean 230million more on the budget for schools.
Update: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...teachers-see-only-extra-15-prop-123/86055862/ "The measure was sold as a way to direct money — significant money — to teachers and classrooms. In one tweet, for example, the Let's Vote Yes for Arizona Schools campaign noted that Carrie Viers, a language arts teacher in the Tempe Elementary School District "has a second job because she can't live on a teacher's salary. A yes vote on Prop. 123 could change that." The reality may be less life-changing. After taxes and pension deductions, teachers in Peoria will pocket an extra $15 every two weeks on average, school board records show. With no rules on how the money can be used, each school district has tried to address its own priorities. While many supporters of the measure invoked teachers as the main reason to vote for Prop. 123, others in the public school systems have staked a claim to the money, especially after many went years without raises beginning in the recession. Those seeing raises include relatively low-paid secretaries, custodians and bus drivers. But it also includes superintendents, principals and mid-level administrators who don’t work in classrooms." The districts The Republic reviewed stand to collect more than half the money doled out under Prop. 123 in its first year. But as a practical matter, big changes may be unlikely because there are no immediate signs of additional funding heading to public education. On the night he declared victory for Prop. 123, Ducey signaled he isn’t looking for more money in education."
