Reader Response
The article “Reality Check: Anti-Proposition
30 Twists the Facts” reports on the veracity of the recent Anti-Proposition 30
claims. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which opposes Proposition 30,
recently ran a thirty-second radio advertisement on the main California media
stations. The ad features a carnival worker pitching Proposition 30 “snake-oil”
as well as a statement from Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association. Coupal stated that the California School Boards
Association says that none of the “new” funding from the Proposition will go to
California schools. The article shows
how this information is misleading and provides information that debunks the
above mentioned claim. The article states that the California School Boards
Association does in fact support Proposition 30. Additionally, the measure will
provide 3.6 billion dollars to California schools by the fiscal year ending in
June. Back in May 2012, the California
School Boards Association did say that the measure does not supply any “new”
funding for California Schools. However, the measure replenishes the funding
that had been cut back previously. The
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association took School Boards statement and used the
information out of the context that it was given in.
This article is written
by the San Jose Mercury News in the midst of the Proposition 30. Proposition
30, also known as Jerry Brown’s Tax Measure, will increase the California’s
sales tax by a quarter of a cent per year for four years. Additionally, the
measure will increase personal income tax for Californians’ who make over
250,000 dollars per year or joint filers making over $500,000 for seven years.
The measure would allot eighty-nine percent of the temporary tax revenue to
k-12 schools and eleven percent to community colleges. The article seems very
unbiased since it is coming from a reputable newspaper and seems to be more
concerned with delivering the facts.
The main point of the
article is to show that Proposition 30 does provide funding to California
Schools. I feel that the author does a good job at presenting the claim against
Proposition 30 and also providing the facts to show that the claim is dubious.
The article states the facts in a very reader friendly manner so that the
public can by rightfully informed when it comes to the future of California.
Additionally, the article does a good job showing were the claim originated and
how the context was skewed by the Anti-proposition 30 group. I feel strongly
that the public should know the facts and be informed prior to voting and this
article delivered successfully.
