Cons:
1. The guarantee of funding education will be gone. The earmark for education was put in the constitution to make sure future lawmakers could not use funds from the income tax for anything but education. That priority has served the state well for 93 years.
2. Risk of underfunding education: Without the earmark, there is a risk that education might face reduced funding as lawmakers prioritize other budgetary needs. This could negatively impact the quality of education and exacerbate funding disparities. Utah is already 49th in the country for education funding.
3. Long-term impact uncertainty: The long-term effects of removing the earmark are uncertain. No budget framework has been developed for how education and other state priorities will be funded. In fact, with just over 40 days before ballots go out, the text of the constitutional amendment still hasn’t been shared with voters.
4. Education may have to depend on less certain sources of funding. The income tax is the rock of all state taxes. The income tax is the most dependable source of money for the state with the least fluctuation from year to year.
5. Removing the earmark poses risks to consistent and sufficient funding for our public schools. Eliminating the earmark risks greater instability in funding our schools.
The proposed language to change the sources of funding for education in Utah requires careful consideration by every Utah voter. It is a decision that will likely impact education for the next 100 years.