The battle over Prop 123 rages on in the MSM, on Facebook . . . everywhere. No need to re-argue the issue here. It’s been argued nearly to death by me and others, and by now most people have made up their minds. So far as I know, there’s no polling available to predict the outcome. Anyone’s guess is as good as mine. But a question as big as the May 17 outcome is, what happens May 18?
The May 17 vote must be seen as the beginning, not the end of the discussion about school funding. Whether the proposition goes up or down, whether some of the money voters demanded for schools in 2000 is restored immediately or in a few years or is tied up in endless lawsuits, at best it’s a financial first step in what must be a concerted effort to give our schools the money they need to improve the quality of our children’s educations. If passed, Prop 123 will put back about 70 percent of the funds taken illegally from schools. In other words, best case scenario, we’ll still be 30 percent below the woefully low educational funding levels of 2009. This is nothing new. It began when the Republicans took over the state’s government in 1966 and continued as they solidified their power. (At the end of the post is a graph of the decline in per student funding from an earlier post.)
I’m not sure what form the post-May 17 pressure will take, though there are some early signs of activism. I know right from the start, people have to stand in the way of Ducey’s victory lap if Prop 123 passes, or refute his “It looks like voters don’t want more money for education” lecture if it fails. Ducey wants to put the funding issue behind him as quickly as he can, and that can’t be allowed to happen.
Next, voters need to understand that the current Republican legislative majority will never vote for a substantial raise in school funding. Right now Republicans outnumber Democrats 36 to 24 in the House and 18 to 12 in the Senate. This session we saw how hard it was to pull together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans just to make sure education funding didn’t decrease like Ducey wanted, or even to pass KidsCare which is paid for entirely by the federal government. In the House, it takes all the Democrats and seven Republicans to override the right wing agenda. In the Senate, four Republicans have to join together with Democrats. Every Republican replaced by a Democrat in November will make it one vote easier to restore funding for education, social services and infrastructure needs. The closer we come to an even split, the better chance we have to reverse the downward spiral of the budget and the upward trajectory of tax cuts for the rich.
Here’s the graph created by the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University in 2009. It begins in 1964 when Arizona was above average in per student funding and continues to 2006 when we had fallen below 80 percent. A 10 year update would show the line descending even further.
This article appears in May 12-18, 2016.
To borrow a phrase from someone else, Outed and Ousted in August. Know for whom you are (re)electing in the August primary. Don’t be fooled by legislators or candidates that say they support “public education.” Check their voting record in the statehouse. If it’s a new candidate, question them on their stance for public ed. Do they support more investment in district public schools or giving tax payer funds to private businesses to administer their charter schools? Does your state legislative candidate own a private or charter school? Do he/she administer a student tuition organization?
In Pima County they are already telling voters that “certain” polling places will be closed because of school graduations…gee, I wonder who decided to have a special election on the same day as graduations. I wonder how many voters will not be able to vote or be turned away or have their provisional ballots “lost.” It may be a coincidence, but if past behavior is any indication, looks like the special election is going to be another goat rope.
We would all be better off if the mailman picked up your ballot when he/she dropped off your lunch meal and food for the rest of the evening. That way when he comes back tomorrow he may have time to run you to your doctor and stop at the casino for a little blackjack.
Stop voting in person. They don’t ask for ID and it creates more opportunity for fraud. Vote by mail, like the smarter electorate does.
There are several trails that need to be blazed if we are to ever achieve a truly pro-public schools/pro-child majority in the Arizona Legislature:
1. The Arizona Republican Party has a proud legacy of legislators who fought for the interests of kids and the schools they attend. Ann Day, who was tragically killed last weekend, is just one example. Freddy and Pete Hershberger, Steve Huffman, LouAnn Preble, Sue Grace, Sue Gerard and Toni Hellon are other names that could be cited. Chris Ackerley is a current representative who has a sound philosophy and approach to education issues. Republicans who want Arizona to rise from the bottom rank of states in support for public schools need to find legislative candidates who will fight for that outcome. These are the people who need to step up in districts where it is unlikely for a Democrat to win.
2. Democrats need to recalibrate their efforts to register voters and encourage turnout in heavily Democratic and swing districts, as well as statewide. Republican voter registration numbers are not much larger than the count for Democrats. The fastest growing segment of the electorate are independents, who have trended Republican in many races in recent years, but are persuadable based on their affiliation.
3. Statewide Democratic candidates, especially for offices such as governor and state superintendent of instruction, need to be more assertive and direct with voters about the likely outcomes if their opponents are elected. To be blunt, both Fred DuVal and David Garcia were milquetoast candidates who did not take the fight to Doug Ducey and Diane Douglas until it was too damn late. If both of them had descended from their ivory towers and had spoken bluntly about the potentially disastrous effects of electing Ducey and Douglas, we might not be where we are now. Nominating an articulate and savvy fighter is especially important when we choose a gubernatorial candidate in 2018. Should the Legislature still be run by right-wing Republicans at that time, electing a Democrat as governor would at least require them to override vetoes to further their agendas.
I oppose Prop 123 and know that Mr. Safier supports it. I agree with him, however, that more fights must be joined as soon as this election ends. Hopefully, the nature and substance of the debate over Prop 123 has energized the public to finally address the sustained and willful neglect of the needs of children and schools in our state.
On May 13, four days before the vote will take place on Prop 123, David Safier says most people have made up their minds on how they will vote and there’s no reason to discuss the proposition further. This is a convenient argument for someone who has publicly taken a position on the wrong side of the issue to make.
And then he manages to slip in the false notion that Prop 123 will “put back” about 70% of the funds taken illegally from the schools. Wrong. “Putting them back” would involve drawing them once again from the right sources, not tapping a source (the land trust) that should not be tapped, a transparent scam that should never be glossed over in any honest discussion of the Proposition.
As one of the commenters points out above, what needs to happen in the future, contra Safier, is not a simple minded program of “electing more Democrats.” Some Democrats are suck-ups and sell-outs, as we have had plenty of opportunity to observe as many of them have capitulated on Prop 123 in recent weeks, motivating many former party members to re-register as Independents. There are some Republicans who are quite capable of voting in support of the right kinds of measures to fund and support public education — and speaking out publicly about why the Prop should be opposed, as Dewitt has done — so discerning who should be voted for involves a lot more than looking at whether there is a D or an R next to the name on the ballot.
Do try a little harder, David Safier, with your arguments and analyses. You’ve been producing some pretty weak and disappointing pieces lately. Perhaps, if you cannot raise the bar for yourself a bit, in the future you should find a good picture of a big fat rubber stamp to use for your headline image. Sadly, that’s the role you too often play these days, rubber stamping lowest-common-denominator, manipulative party-line arguments that don’t bear examination and are not worthy of respect.
There will never be enough money to fill the pockets of the liberal public education sector. Even after filling the seats with illegals to line their own pockets, stealing tax dollars from property owners knowing that 85% of the females crossing the board, they want more, more, more.
They are buying votes by importation using our money and our jobs. It’s what a Democrat does.
Safier totally fails as a pretend statistition. He uses expenditures as percent of national average which means absolutely nothing.
Aside from Tucson being the 5th poorest city in the country under unlimited liberal rule, name one state that liberals aren’t crying for more money and the public schools are excelling.
Liberals have destroyed our public education system.
“Liberals have destroyed our public education system.”
No, What, Again. You need to place that blame where it belongs. The stodgy conservative greed mongers have destroyed the public education system by not paying their fair share of taxes. If you don’t see that for what it is, that means you are either one of them or you are a moron…or both. I say you’re probably both, your posts seem to reflect that.
Just go away, take your ill gotten gains and move to Detroit. That way you can get your jollies by bitching about how you live in the poorest city in the country under unlimited liberal rule.
Ac/dc
Why would anyone move to detroit to be in the poorest city in america when you can stay in tucson, suck off the few that actually work and pay taxes and just wait. Tucson will continue to climb the ladder of government depndence, illegals and poverty and as liberals, proudly so.
Hey, you’re not objecting to being labeled as a moron. You may not accept all that is fact, but at least you are accepting to some of what is true.
Right-wing conservative politicians are easy to understand: They are all about rewarding their friends (tax cuts for the rich), and punishing their perceived enemies (unions, especially teacher’s unions, and educators in general). This is why we have seen continually diminishing funding for the public schools and universities. Republicans know that the overwhelming majority of school and university employees support Democrats. Therefore, according to their logic, why should they give them any more funding than they are required to by law? Also, why not use legislative and accounting tricks to choke off existing funding streams?
Their long-term strategy is clear: They want to discourage as many Democrats/progressives as possible from even residing in Arizona. That will eventually make Arizona essentially a one-party state, in the mold of Utah, if they enjoy continued success at the ballot box.
Starcommand, their long-term goal is to end public education and prop 123 is a huge nail in that coffin. The infrastructure of education is being robbed to pay back education which is a crime unto itself. Vote no on prop 123 all.
Nice article Dave. I appreciate the chart which shows that in 1964 when I was in grade school in Phoenix, Arizona did a good job funding public education. We owe it to our kids to give them the same chance I had as a child. Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, I will support efforts to support public education better than we have recently.