If nothing else, the recent pandemic (or plandemic, if you will) has shown us the ability of even the most level-headed free-market political leaders to become authoritarian dictators given half a chance.
And the majority of Arizona voters, given the ability to watch this play out in person every night on the evening news, are of the same authoritarian bent. They have constitutionally capped for all time the ability of a person or small business to succeed and be productive above $250,000 per year. Or at least until Arizona's "New Left" grows up and realizes that class warfare is a losing game.
I define Arizona's "New Left" as those people who have decamped the fetid, crime-ridden ratholes that major, largely west coast cities to come to Arizona. Unfortunately, they bring with them the brainwashed belief in the mythology that "Our superior progressive policies would have worked "if only we had more rich folks to tax, or more land to build on, or more people with us or ..." The laundry list goes on. Never do they admit that their failed policies go against human nature, the law, or common sense.
I'll be the first to admit that there are some progressive ideas that have turned out well. There are maybe some that might be beneficial to society as a whole. Never, however, at the expense of a few folks ramming them down the collective throats of the majority of the citizens of the United States.
I digress.
Still No On 208
For several reasons, this is still a bad Proposition.
Right off the top, let us take something was the rap on Proposition 207: "Won't Fund K-12"
There is nothing in Proposition 208 that specifically sets aside a certain or any amount for K-12 education, more particularly teacher salaries. There just is not. Yes, K-12 schools maybe. Certainly for a Big Powerful K-12 Teacher's Union. I guess this is what #InvestInEd and #RedForEd are all about.
It could easily not collect enough to make it worth the e-paper it is printed on. Quoting from the Goldwater Institute:
"This report documents the projected economic fallout of Prop. 208, including job losses, suppressed wage growth, dampened business recruitment, and harm to the state's current economic base. In particular, economic modeling shows that with the passage of Prop. 208, we can expect the following:
Job losses will reach a minimum of 124,000 by the 10th year of implementation—four times greater than the losses experienced during the economic downturn of 2001. Far from affecting only high-income earners, the initiative will jeopardize the employment of thousands of plumbers, dry cleaners, nurses, retail store employees, mechanics, janitors, and others throughout the state.
A minimum of $2.4 billion in state and local tax revenues will be lost over the same period. The economic losses will be the result of a reduction in business recruitment, job growth, and wages, as well as an erosion of the current economic base.
State General Fund revenues will lose at least $120 million per year, resulting in cuts to other government services. The initiative requires any decrease in state revenue to be made up by cutting from other sources, such as child protective services, public safety, and higher education.
Fifty percent of those whose tax rates will be directly targeted will be small business owners. These individuals represent thousands of job creators and will bear a disproportionate load from the #InvestinEd price tag.
Importantly, while the economic modeling behind this report analyzed multiple potential economic scenarios, only the most (overly) conservative—and favorable to Prop. 208—scenario is presented here."
"Arizona AG indicts signature-gathering company over Prop 208 petitions"
This headline pretty much summarizes this point. Not that there haven't been gross irregularities with signature gathering in Arizona in the past. However, there are more important issues.
Proposition 208 Violates the Constitution of the State of Ohio
Again quoting the Goldwater Institute:
"The new initiative raises taxes without a two-thirds vote of the state legislature, but through a narrow majority of the voting public instead. In the parts of the initiative governing spending, it declares that money obtained through the new tax increase "are not considered local revenues for the purposes of...[the] Constitution," and are "exempt" from the Constitution's spending limits.
But Prop. 208 is not a constitutional amendment. It's an ordinary law—which means it must comply with the state Constitution. And since the legislature could not have adopted language exempting itself from the Constitution's taxing and spending rules, that means the voters could not do so either."
You would think that a group of teachers would have realized this at the planning stage.
