Since then a series of studies have indeed found that this was not an isolated incident. One study looked at earmarking of education in five states over the course of several years. None of the earmarked states saw increases in real dollar funding for education and all but one actually saw declines. The National Conference of State Legislatures has also studied earmarking on several occasions, and, having found similar results has repeatedly advised against earmarking revenue. In a state like Arizona, where the educational environment is dramatically changing, the last thing we need is less flexibility in the budgeting process.
Flexibility encourages accountability.
By forcing legislators to review priorities and resources every year, the normal budget process makes sure that every program is carefully watched. Funding should focus on the child and not the system. In earmarking funds, proposition 301 encourages legislators to pay attention to neither. Matthew Mitchell, a student in economics and political science at Arizona State University, is a research associate at the Goldwater Institute. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Goldwater Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation.