Prop 123 falters in future

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the latest edition of Arizona state legislature involves the everlasting controversy of expanding school funding. According to azcharters.org the exact written purpose of the proposed bill, is that Prop 123 “adds education funding over 10 years to K-12 students and settles a lawsuit on K-12 funding.” This bill proposes to add a sum of $3.5 billion to the education budget. Because this bill is pumping more money into the public schooling system, the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the State land trust, a place that was originally supposed to allocate education funding in the first place. This bill merely forces the fund to do something it is already supposed to do.

Another main proponent of this bill is that the money comes with a catch; the $3.5 billion becomes void if the state’s funding for public education becomes in excess of 49% of the government’s total spending in the fiscal year. Basically, if spending on education becomes more than 49% of Arizona’s state budget, the money disappears. This is a transgression because of two main reasons.

The first main issue is that this caps school funding at a finite number. Dave Braun, candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives for District 27, says that Prop 123 ” is a ruse so that the Governor [Doug Ducey] can claim that he spent more money on education without raising taxes when he runs for re-election”.

Governor Ducey believes that this Proposition is very necessary, saying that “there is no Plan B, it is critical this be successful at the ballot”.

By setting a cap of 49%, the state legislature is saying that they do not want to spend money on education if it becomes a more sizable priority. It is not right for the state to cap something that oscillates with the consistency of public education. This could become a problem if schools begin doing things that cost more money; perhaps schools will begin using solely computers for education, or education could require materials that prove more costly than a set budget. That will require a lot more money, money that will most likely exceed 49% of a budget.

The second reason is that Prop 123 directly violates Proposition 301, voted on in 2000. This bill, states that the state would have to increase public schooling funding every fiscal year to account for the inflation rate of the dollar. By setting this cap at 49% of the budget, this Proposition is not actually legal, as it violates a law previously voted on by Arizona’s taxpaying voters. This cap also, unfairly, does not account for the somewhat inevitable inflation of the national currency.

It seems mostly nonsensical for voters to vote on a proposition that boldly ignores a previous document