Seems Like the Morning Daily Supports Prop 123

1. Might as well support 123. The ice cream man is going to stack the state sup.court and screw us anyway.
   And with the National Debt at 20T$, the kids are screwed anyway, any help now may help them later when they are picking grapes in CA. Going to piss off the illegals to see so many gringos in the fields.
   You have to wonder. All these tax (corp. welfare) advantages for Stone Cold Ducey’s friends, and, hey presto, no middle class to buy any products. Talk about short sighted.

2. And there is a pro-blurb running at the top of the editorial page — atop the usual guest editorial — every day.
   A little much.

3. NO, not only no, but absolutely not! Stealing from tomorrow’s children for the magic words of “no new taxes” when in reality the state has stolen education monies and refuses to give them back, no matter what the courts say!

4. I don’t think voting Yes does anything for the financial future of school funding. The Gov. is just putting off a solution that is good for the immediate needs for funding. Yes, individuals will have to pay increased State taxes but that has always been our responsibility. And, yes, corporations will have to pay up too. I think the core issue is putting responsibility where it belongs. So, Governor, do it right the first time and quit looking for loophole methods.

5. “Jeff DeWit (R), state treasurer of Arizona, said:[20]
   This proposition will change the Arizona Constitution and is inconsistent with the Enabling Act, violates the prudent investor rule, does not protect the Trust Fund from inflation, and will dip into the corpus (principal) of the Fund. The future estimates provided by the proponents of the plan are also highly optimistic as they assume no negative stock market returns or corrections during the next 10 years. Due to the payout structure of this plan, it could face years of litigation with questionable outcomes. This further delays funding to our schools and subjects Arizona to another costly and public court battle.[7]”

   Note that big “R” up there. When even they think it’s a raw deal, it’s a ~~~raw~~~ deal.

   And this gem:
   “Of note is that Proposition 123 would amend that 2000 voter-approved measure that mandates annual inflation funding increases. It would allow lawmakers to refuse to provide inflation increases any time K-12 funding exceeds 49 percent of the state budget; at 50 percent the Legislature actually could reduce state aid.
   Schools currently make up about 42 percent of state spending.”

   In other words, give it a couple years, and we’ll be right back where we started: ~nothing~!! And, they will have dropped the lawsuit from the last proposition we passed to fund our schools…

6. Funny how the papers are always in support of something the populace (as self-selected by the above comments and ~every~ other prop123 article TW has run) has nothing but disdain for. Now that’s bi-partisan!

Comments are closed.