Yes on 204 Campaign: Proposition Doesn't Create Gigantic (or Any) Abortion "Slush Fund"

yes-on-204.jpg
Despite what the Center for Arizona Policy is telling its supporters about Proposition 204, the Yes on 204 campaign says it won't create $100 million "slush fund" to pay for abortions -- or any sort of fund for abortions.

In fact, Yes on 204 campaign officials say the estimated $100 million that would be allocated to the "family stability and self-sufficiency fund" is going operate as it's described in the proposition.

See also:
-Center for Arizona Policy's Theory on Prop. 204: It Creates a $100 Million Abortion Fund

As we noted earlier, the fund would be used to "provide services for the basic needs of children, families, and vulnerable adults whose household income is less than two hundred percent of the federal poverty level."

According to the proposition, "basic needs" includes "preventing hunger, homelessness, and family and domestic violence and providing child care and other community and social services that lead to family stability and self-sufficiency."

The Yes on 204 campaign notes that the proposition was intentionally crafted without the phrase "health services."

"The politically connected and powerful anti-education politicians are getting desperate and pulling out all the stops," Yes on 204 chairwoman Ann-Eve Pedersen says. "Proposition 204 does nothing to supersede state law defining how state healthcare funds are spent. What Proposition 204 does is provide support for children living near or below the poverty line. For the opposition to say otherwise is being deceitful with the voters. Every child in Arizona should have the opportunity to start school ready to succeed."

We're not sure where CAP came up with the abortion theory, but it hasn't popped up in any non-partisan analysis, nor has it shown up in any other partisan analysis that we're aware of.

One non-partisan analysis, from the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, can be found here.



My Voice Nation Help
15 comments
gr_ywolf001
gr_ywolf001

My concern with this is that the monies to be sent to education will be the only money that will go to it.  The state will not allocate any other funds in the budget to the education dept.  You know the idea of " well there is already 500 mil going there so we can cut 500 mil out of the budget and use for something else".  Just not confident in the fact that this will be in additional 500 mil. to the funding in the budget for education.  

youproductsucks
youproductsucks

I, like the majority of voting Arizonans, will vote No on 204.

 

The funding set aside in the last sales tax increase did nothing to increase our education numbers nor did any of it make it into the classrooms or into the pockets of hard working teachers.  Throwing money at a problem never fixes the problem, it only makes it more expensive.

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 I'm concerned that this creates a slush fund that the governor can use to fund religious activities...oh, I mean "faith based social services." You know, the kind of services that are directed only to people of a specific faith.  This could be grants for child care facilities at certain churches or it could be pregenancy "crisis counseling" which is thinly disguised anti-abortion proselytizing by religious groups.

 

From a purely policy wonk standpoint, however, I think that referendum based budget allocation is a horrible idea because it ties the state's hands and prevents the state from establishing future budgets based on the state's needs in the future. Don't get me wrong, I think that our current legislators that are in charge of developing and passing this state's budget are generally imbeciles. But the solution is to vote the imbeciles out of office, not establish mandatory budget expenditures by referendum in a way that can't be revised in the future to respond to future needs and opportunities.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

screw CAP...bunch of zealots who somehow dont have the first fucking clue about the religion they try to force on everyone...should she be reading this (though i doubt it), whatever the ring leaders name is im down to debate on Christianity anytime lady and show your hypocrisy..im tired of it. 

scrambleitsbrains
scrambleitsbrains

I <3 abortions! I think that all pro-choice liberals should abort at least one of their children.

Bnbk
Bnbk

Vote Yes on prop 204,the clowns down at the capitol would like nothing better than to get their corrupt paws on our childrens education fund...........We need to invest in education not incarceration...........Vote yes on 204,tell those dimwits down at the capitol to go pack sand. 

teknik
teknik topcommenter

duh, if you don't like something aim to get an emotionally charged response out of people.  emotional ploys tend to have a bigger impact.

EnoughAlready
EnoughAlready

 @LegitQuestions

 Prop 100 did not have restrictions and the leg pounced on it.  Prop 204 is written so it can not be touched by the leg or the gov.  During hearings, Gould mad a sure to point that out.  Because the leg lied, that is why PARENTS got together to write this prop.  Prop 100 went into the General Fund and they could do with it whatever they pleased. 

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @scrambleitsbrains

 The whole point of the pro-choice movement is the choice part - including the choice not to have one if so desired.

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @Bnbk

 Prop 204 guarantees funds to a wide range of things - not just education.  It guarantees capital spending which is why the builders/contractors are all for it.  This is not the way to budget - it locks in money for special projects that essentially can't be changed in the future except by another referendum 

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @EnoughAlready

 Which is why I favored Prop 100 - it raised necessary revenue that the legislature was to chicken too raise on its own.  But it was temporary, expired by its own terms, and kept the budgeting discretion with the elected legislature.  Prop 204 removes that budgeting discretion and dictates how the funds are allocated, which to me is a bad way to develop a budget and set budgeting priorities.

Bnbk
Bnbk

 @LegitQuestions  @Bnbk

 I realize what this proposition funds. Everything that Prop 204 funds,in my opinion is money well spent. The bottom line is without this prop 204,these dimwits will once again be free to allocate funds, at their own descretion,for any special interest they see fit.........DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.. EFFECTIVE JUNE 1,2013, PERMANENTLY INCREASES THE SALES TAX BY ONE CENT PER DOLLAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS,PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS , AND HUMAN SERVICES ; FORBIDS REDUCTIONS TO CURRENT K-12 AND UNIVERSITY FUNDING LEVELS ; AND FORBIDS REDUCTION TO THE CURRENT STATE SALES TAX BASE.........This is a one cent sales tax that we have already been paying. Can anybody,honestly say that it has been an overburdening tax,a tax that has been immpossible to live with ? Prop 204 only forbids reductions in funding for K-12 and Universities. Since AZ is ranked 48th in the nation in Education expenditures,I say it is time we start catching up with the rest of the nation........Leaving these types of fiscal decisions to the inept "leaders" we currently have in office,when they have already shown themselves incapable of making budget decisions in the public interest instead of for special interest,will only delay our fiscal recovery and growth...... I would suggest everyone read their AZ General Election Guide and read the arguments for and against..........The arguments against are made by a who's who of the right-wing Tea Bag Brigade--Brain-Fart Brewer, RuSSell Pearce,Debbie Lesko,Steve Pierce. Their arguments don't hold water,they just want to once again re-allocate education funds to their special interest masters.....EDUCATION  NOT INCARCERATION !

stephen431
stephen431

 @LegitQuestions  @EnoughAlready I think dictating how the funds are allocated is the main point of this proposition and it's the main reason why I'll support Prop 204. The legislature will still have plenty of budgeting discretion, but this prop ensures that schools will at least receive a necessary minimum funding level.

 

This legislature's budgeting "discretion" has placed Arizona 50th in education funding. I think that provides adequate justification to remove some of their discretion from education funding. 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...