YES or NO to 30?

Politics is a very complicated science. There is no merely one solution to any single issue, and it is heavily swayed by external conditions as well as psychological bias. Analysis of political events is very similar to literature appreciation; different individuals, based on the same issue, can derive opposite stands based on their own interpretations. The California 2012 ballot propositions have stirred up numerous opinions in the nation. However, there are still plenty of those who have yet to take up a stand. In these situations, it is common for politicians to employ certain advertising campaigns to gain favor and persuade the people to support their stands. Among these propositions, Proposition 30 is one of those that have aroused much attention from the society. Those in favor and against the proposition have fervently proposed many arguments to support their own position. However, through examining the different advertisements available in the media, a few logically fallacies can be found in the reasoning of those in favor.

Earning more money does not necessary relate to extra social responsibility. Many people are inclined to vote for proposition 30 based on the notion that the state will be increasing the tax rate on wealthiest Californians earning over $250,000 annually. However, these voters have committed an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The official California Voter Guide stated that "Only highest-income earners pay more income tax: Prop. 30 asks those who earn the most to temporarily pay more income taxes. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes." There are neither constitutions nor legislations that demand higher levels of social duties from those who are better off. It is false to justify higher taxation on the affluent just because there is little opposition to the proposition. Every member of society is subjected to identical levels of social benefits and responsibilities. Therefore, no one has the grounds to warrant additional taxes from the rich when they are not granted extra welfares from higher civil burdens. Paying extra is an act of philanthropy, not responsibility. Moreover, higher income is a reliable indication to one’s ability and profession. Many of these top earners have strived diligently to achieve their current status. Thus, the progressive tax proposed would be a punishment to their efforts. Such taxations are not healthy to the economy, as it implicitly promotes slacking work ethics. It is foolish to invest more into work just to contribute more to the state revenue, and no one is willing to labor for the fruits they will not reap. It is faulty to suggest additional social responsibilities from the wealthy, and such changes in tax policies will only discourage economic activities.

Advocates of the proposition vows that it is the sole means to ensure public safety. However, there is a slippery slope fallacy found in the argument made by California Labor Federation on the proposition. California Labor Federation publicly states: “Prop. 30 will make sure public safety is required in our state’s constitution, so that funding cannot be cut without voter approval. It will put more cops on the streets and save the state billions on future prison costs.” It looks logical, however, when we think deeper, the correlation between the numbers of police and the in prison cost is irrelevant. There are no chain relationships between the number of cops and crime rates. More officers do not mean that the criminal rate can be effectively reduced. In 1972, the police department of Kansas City, Missouri undertook the experiment “Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment“ to analyze the correlation between preventative patrols and crime rate. The experiment compared the criminal activities between three different police beats in Kansas City with varied patrol routines, and the results showed that "the experimental conditions had no significant effect on residence and non-residence burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism…in terms of rates of reporting crime to the police, few differences and no consistent patterns of differences occurred across experimental conditions”. The increase of preventive patrol has little value in eliminating crimes. Change in levels of police does not correlate with higher levels of public security, thus, the experiment is proof that the argument made by California Labor Federation on Proposition 30 is not valid.

The campaign for Proposition 30, in attempts to gain more support, gathered momentum by recruiting politicians and various associations, hoping to stack up their odds through endorsement effect. Nevertheless, authorities are not always correct. In the argument for the proposition from The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California), it mentioned: "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities." The press committed the appeal to authority fallacy by trying to rationalize supporting the cause: Jerry Brown says yes to Prop. 30, so should the Californians. There are no direct relationship between Jerry Brown and the effect of tax on the funding on schools. The governor has his own take on the issue, so does thousands of other people. His opinion is not indicative of any moral value. It is simply his position on the proposition. There are advertisements adopting the same strategy to promote their brands through high profile endorsers. Yet, these endorsements do not guarantee the products’ qualities, and one must not neglect the commercial values and publicity in the ads. Individuals have their own standards as to what is right or wrong, good or bad. Therefore, authorities are not in a position to decide for the majority of the public. Jerry Brown’s support on proposition 30 has no business to do with opinions other than his own.

Furthermore, Proposition 30 is concentrated to gain votes by pledging funding into education. The California Teachers Association asserts that passing the proposition will guarantee investments in the younger generation, yet failure to do so will plunge these budget cuts. The California Labor Federation stated: " Prop. 3 is the only initiative that will protect school and safety funding…Schools face an additional $6 billion in cuts if Prop 30 does not pass. Instead, Prop. 30 will provide billions in new funding starting this year, which will go towards things like smaller class sizes, updated textbooks and rehiring teachers." This statement committed a false dichotomy fallacy. Additional billions of budget and an additional $6 billion cut are two extreme choices. Those in favor of the proposition are offering to solve the dilemma by providing two solutions. The sole solution to escape the reduction of resources into schools is to support Prop. 30. They have intentionally disregard the numerous other ways maintain the current resources without passing the proposition. The education system is suffering not because of an inadequate budget, but because much of these resource have not been put to good use. According to an article on Fox News, “A middle school in Southern California is spending $10,000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish to 35 of its 650 students—and all but one of them are already fluent in Spanish.” Such cases are not rare, and are clearly indicative of waste resource in the sector. Through careful planning and reform, good money can be redirected to genuinely benefit students and avoid being wasted. California does not need billions of funding gone to waste; it just needs to relocate the areas worth investing. Supporters of the proposition are incorrect to suggest that Proposition 30 is the only way to maintain quality of learning. It can also be achieved through reformation.

After understanding different arguments on Proposition 30, we can easily spot several fallacies in the arguments of the supporting party. There are logical flaws in their claims in attempts to justify the proposition. We cannot predict the effects if Proposition 30 is passed, yet it is important to make clear our stand and not to be blinded by biased arguments around us.

Reflection

This is the second in class essay in the class, I did not feel good when I submit this essay, I think there can be still more development on the points. As I am an international student, I have a sense that I do not have a very deep understand to the prompt and the situation in California. It is quite hard to figure out what is the situation in California in that short period of time. This is a problem on the preparation on the essay.

After learning from the failure from the first in class essay, I understand that proofreading take a very important role in the writing process. Looking at the in class essay 2, I think I have improved, but not much. The sentence variation is still very limited. I think if I have more time to do reading on different materials such as news, novels or even watching movies, it can help me to construct sentences in a better way.