Will more money go to education if the one cent sales tax initiative passes? Yes!

by David Safier

Lots of people are worried that if we pass the one cent sales tax renewal initiative, the legislature will just lower the amount it puts in the education budget, add the sales tax money on top of that, and we'll end up in the same place we are now. However, the wording of the initiative has been crafted to keep that from happening. It states, the legislature has to appropriate as much money as it did during the 2011-12 fiscal year or the 2012-13 fiscal year, whichever is greater. The money from the sales tax would be added on top of that amount.

Here is the relevant part of the initiative. If you're not used to reading proposed legislation, what is being retained from the old legislative language is in black. The part removed is crossed out in red, and the additions are in all caps in blue.

Section 1. Section 15-901.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
15-901.01. Inflation adjustments; prohibited funding reductions
A. If approved by the qualified electors voting at a statewide general election, for fiscal years 2001-2002 through 2005-2006, the legislature shall increase the base level or other components of the revenue control limit by two per cent. For fiscal year 2006-2007 2013-2014 and each fiscal year thereafter, the legislature shall increase the base level or AND other components of the revenue control limit by a minimum growth rate of either two per cent or the change in the GDP price deflator, as defined in section 41-563, from the second preceding calendar year to the calendar year immediately preceding the budget year, whichever is less, except that NEITHER the base level NOR THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR EQUALIZATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-971 shall never EVER be reduced below the base level established OR THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR EQUALIZATION ASSISTANCE for fiscal year 2001-2002 2011-2012 OR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

B. IF APPROVED BY THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING AT A STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 AND EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE BASE SUPPORT LEVEL PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 15-943, THE MAXIMUM INDEBTEDNESS ALLOWED FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT BONDS AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET OVERRIDES SHALL NOT BE REDUCED BELOW THAT AMOUNT ALLOWED BY LAW ON JANUARY 1, 2012.

I'm not a lawyer. I can't promise some son of a bitch of a legislator won't figure out a work-around to screw over school children and deny them the increase in education spending. But the language sounds very clear and direct to my ear. The state is forbidden from appropriating less than the larger figure appropriated for the 2011-12 or 2012-13 fiscal year. Then the sales tax money will be added to that amount.

The rest of the initiative spells out exactly where the sales tax dollars will go. I posted a Q&A breakdown of the initiative in April which I believe is still valid. Bottom line: Arizona's K-12 education spending will increase between $500 and $650 per student. If that sounds like a large increase, it's not. We'll still be in the bottom few states in per student funding. We would need to increase our funding by more like $1000 to $2000 per student to equal low spending states like Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Anyone who tells you the amount of money spent on education doesn't matter is either lying or deluded. The simple fact is, we're depriving our children of the education they deserve and the future we want for them by keeping our education expenditures low. The initiative is a significant step in the right direction.

Comments

[falcon9]

You are the liar. all of this money will go to increase education salaries and therefore pensions - none of it will go to improve quality. that is the record of the system - and it is revealed in this initiative - the initiative is designed to wipe out charter schools and the choices of parents

[David Safier]

Note to potential commenters: Please don't feed the trolls. The comment above is not quite scurrilous enough for me to delete it, so it stays, but it's begging for responses, which it doesn't deserve.

[Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer]

It is obviously an objectionable comment but the last 90% of the post is a good point, if valid. I am surprised he alleges that the initiative is designed to wipe out charter schools. I would imagine charter schools would have made such a point to the media if that was really the case. He has a reasonable point that more money sent to the school system is no guarantee that the quality of education will improve.

[David Safier]

Thane, in response to your question about charter schools: the initiative divides the money equally to schools on a per student basis. That includes district schools and charters without any weighting for economic status, number of ELL students, etc.

I linked to the initiative in the post. It makes for a slow read, but you can see how the money is allocated if you wish.

[Francine Shacter]

A sales tax, no matter the good intentions of those supporting it, is the most regressive tax there is. It requires those with the least incomes to provide a larger proportion of their income. No matter how noble sounding the way the money is to/will be spent, there is no way I will support a sales tax! And no one else with a modicum of social conscience should either!

[falcon9]

It is designed to wipe out charter schools. it protects district school funding, universities and contractors. that leaves charter schools to absorb fiscal shocks. this is intentional and this crisis starts immediately. the language of the initiative creates an immediate crisis

[Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer]

I have a preferred path when it comes to the actual wording. It involves relying upon people who I trust not to lie to me (you for instance). Reading a dozen pages of legal text half of which is in all caps and colored blue is beyond my general tolerances. I actually have a printed copy of the initiative in my car but even in black and white and printed out the whole thing is not desirable reading.

[Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer]

Can you point to a URL where a charter school, charter school organization or other group has made this claim?

[Jana Happel]

Francine, You are right about the regressivity of sales taxes. Having a sales tax of nearly 10% in a community with the poverty levels we see here is terrible. Also, it is just bad policy for the State to have such an unbalanced reliance on sales taxes, as opposed to other taxes and methods for raising revenue. The volatility of the sales tax revenue stream really bit us in the butt during the last downturn. However, I support this initiative because the political realities in Arizona mean that school funding is going happen this way or not at all. We have had several years of significant cuts to the K12 budget and allowing this tax to expire will send our public schools over the cliff. My social conscience tells me that lower income students and families will be better off with this tax than without it, if those are the only two options.

[Francine Shacter]

Jana, if we do not stand firm, not approve a regressive sales tax, we will precipitate the crisis which will bring resolution to the problem of funding schools. Businesses will not come here because people with families (children) don't want to live in a state with lousy education. That will bring pressure that will (I firmly am convinced) cause the legislature to shape up! It is a crisis worth precipitating!