From Fly-Girls to Bitches and Hos is a provocative analysis of Joan Morgan’s view of the root causes of the prevalence of misogyny in rap music lyrics. Written in 1999 as part of a collection of essays entitled, When Chickenheads come Home to Roost…. My Life as a Hip-Hop Feminist, the author being both a woman and an African-American brings her personal experience to bear giving this writing significant credibility. Morgan illuminates the hidden causes of the harsh sexism in rap music lyrics and argues that one needs to look deeper to understand why the misogyny exists and how women in her culture need to respond and also start taking responsibility for its existence in order for changes to begin to take place. The catalyst for Morgan’s writing appears to be her desire to shift the focus on the rap culture from condemnation to a deeper analysis of the root causes. I believe her intended audience is primarily the men and women of her own culture, but also the American public at large, in order for us all to understand what drives this seemingly hateful and self-destructive behavior.
Morgan weaves both description and narration in this writing, as she paints the picture of rap musicians and their attitudes and activities that are very much present in their lyrics. She describes “On booming track after booming track I hear brothers talking about spending each day high as hell on malt liquor and Chronic. Don’t sleep. What passes for “40 and a blunt” good times in most of hip-hop is really alcoholism, substance abuse, and chemical dependency” (603) and she goes on to explain how these same men casually talk about killing each other and don’t really have high expectations for their own survival. “This is straight-up depression masquerading as machismo”. The dysfunction is evident, yet somehow it is seen and admired as manliness and success. She describes the life of the Notorious BIG, one of the kings of rap also filled with drugs, sex, jail time, murder and then reveals to us that “The seemingly impenetrable wall of sexism in rap music is really the complex mask African Americans often wear both to hide and express the pain” (603). Her descriptions are vivid as is the extent of the pain the men must be feeling if they feel such a need to use the hard, crude and hateful lyrics in writing their music. The narration that she uses to weave in and out of the description often comes in the form of her personal views, feelings and questions and they come with a powerful punch. “I need to know why they are so angry at me. Why is disrespecting me one of the few things that make them feel like men? What’s the haps, what are you going through on the daily that’s got you acting so foul?” (603). It’s as if she is making a personal plea, coming from a strong yet knowing place, that there is something wrong on a daily basis in their lives that is causing them to show up this way.
Another mode Morgan uses is exemplification, giving us concrete examples of the dysfunction in the African-American community with statistics from the “U.S. Census Bureau, the number of black two-parent households has decreased from 74 percent to 48 percent since 1960. The leading cause of death among black men ages fifteen to twenty-four is homicide. The majority of them will die at the hands of other black men” (602). Her examples show the incredible amount of anger and deteriorating state of things in this community, currently less than half of families have two parents and the statistics also show that young black men are killing each other in big numbers.
Another mode that Morgan uses is Cause and Effect. She states that “Black men are engaged in a war where the real enemies – racism and the white power structure – are masters of camouflage. They have conditioned our men to believe that the enemy is brown” (604). Therefore it seems that Morgan wants us to understand that the cause of the Rappers misogyny and sexism stems from their low self esteem, their ability to be unable to love themselves and the need to use music lyrics to put women down in order to boost their own self image. All of this created by the racism and white power structure that has always controlled them, and led them to believe that the problem is really theirs.
My Response: I really liked this piece of writing for several reasons; firstly, condemning this culture of rap music is very easy for us all, however Morgan really allows us to take a completely different perspective on it and see the pain that exists at the very base of it. Another reason I liked this was because it was written by someone who is in the midst of the pain and she was able to say things that, had they come from a person of another race, could have been misconstrued to be racist or judgmental. Her ability to take this issue personally and her honesty about this topic made in very powerful. I liked how she spoke about both women and men in her culture needing to take responsibility for this war that is going on between them that it was not just the lyrics but also some of the women who were enabling the rappers by cheapening themselves. I really liked that in this gloomy writing she ends on an empowering and positive note saying that “hip-hop can help us win” “that its incredible ability to articulate our collective pain is an invaluable tool when examining gender relations”(606). So in the end this music is a way for people to hear and express the pain and if they are willing to hear each other’s pain, perhaps they can start figuring out how to heal.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
RR #2 Response to Kimmel
“Bros Before Hos” written by Michael Kimmel is an excerpt from his book Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men which was published in 2008. Kimmel, a sociologist and University instructor in New York writes about what he calls “the guy code”, the reasons and meaning of what drives men’s need to appear masculine and all powerful. He states “Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How we talk. How we walk. What we eat (612).” Kimmel discusses how young boys are set up to learn this code from an early age and why this has lead many more boys than girls to participate in high risk behavior and also statistically have more depression and ADHD.
This discussion begs the question, is it nature or nurture that causes boys and men to live by the “guy code” and my assertion is that although testosterone plays some role in this issue, our society has a much larger role in ensuring that “boys will be boys”. Kimmel discusses common theories “... of biology that claim that this definition of masculinity is “hard-wired,” the result of millennia of evolution adaption or the behavioral response to waves of aggression-producing testosterone and therefore inevitable.(614)” He goes on to explain that “if it were biological, it would be as natural as breathing or blinking. In truth, the Guy Code fits as comfortably as a straightjacket.(615)” When a boy is born, our society has already pigeon holed the child and programming starts pretty much instantly, from the types of toys that are purchased to the colors that are acceptable to dress the child or decorate his room in. Among many parents in today’s society buying a boy a doll or allowing him to wear something pink is completely unacceptable. From an early age boys are told that crying shows weakness and as they get older terms such as “man up” becomes common place. One can argue that fathers, who in most cases went through similar training from their fathers, feel that it is a threat to their own masculinity if their boy child should show any traits that fall outside of the expected norm. Even if some families have chosen to take a less dogmatic stance on teaching the code, once these boys emerge into their adolescent peer groups in elementary and middle school they are pressured to conform or they run the risk of being excluded if they don’t. I therefore agree with Kimmel when discussing the biology versus society issue he states “What these theories fail to account for is the way that masculinity is coerced and policed relentlessly by other guys.(614)” . He is really confirming that society’s role in ensuring the “guy code” is followed is really the major player.
When Kimmel uses the term “fits as comfortably as a straight jacket” he is talking about how men have got very little choice but to participate in the “guy code” and that participating means that they are bound by a set of rigid rules created by the culture in which they live.
This discussion begs the question, is it nature or nurture that causes boys and men to live by the “guy code” and my assertion is that although testosterone plays some role in this issue, our society has a much larger role in ensuring that “boys will be boys”. Kimmel discusses common theories “... of biology that claim that this definition of masculinity is “hard-wired,” the result of millennia of evolution adaption or the behavioral response to waves of aggression-producing testosterone and therefore inevitable.(614)” He goes on to explain that “if it were biological, it would be as natural as breathing or blinking. In truth, the Guy Code fits as comfortably as a straightjacket.(615)” When a boy is born, our society has already pigeon holed the child and programming starts pretty much instantly, from the types of toys that are purchased to the colors that are acceptable to dress the child or decorate his room in. Among many parents in today’s society buying a boy a doll or allowing him to wear something pink is completely unacceptable. From an early age boys are told that crying shows weakness and as they get older terms such as “man up” becomes common place. One can argue that fathers, who in most cases went through similar training from their fathers, feel that it is a threat to their own masculinity if their boy child should show any traits that fall outside of the expected norm. Even if some families have chosen to take a less dogmatic stance on teaching the code, once these boys emerge into their adolescent peer groups in elementary and middle school they are pressured to conform or they run the risk of being excluded if they don’t. I therefore agree with Kimmel when discussing the biology versus society issue he states “What these theories fail to account for is the way that masculinity is coerced and policed relentlessly by other guys.(614)” . He is really confirming that society’s role in ensuring the “guy code” is followed is really the major player.
When Kimmel uses the term “fits as comfortably as a straight jacket” he is talking about how men have got very little choice but to participate in the “guy code” and that participating means that they are bound by a set of rigid rules created by the culture in which they live.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Final Polish - Prop 30 Op Ed
Staking A Claim in California’s Future
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Final Draft - Staking A Claim in California’s Future
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Prop 30 Rough Draft
One of the most important decisions Californians will have to make this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the State’s general fund and this will severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice . Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13, which significantly reduced the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes, the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been on a steady increase. Proposition 30 is Governor Browns attempt at maintaining funding education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, depending on income level for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000 for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet, in order for a long term viable solution to be found.
More and more college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education, however the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account mentioned and funds spent for education.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that set up the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has been on for many years.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation”. This grave statistic tells us that there is a great need to address the education in our State as a matter of urgency in order for there to be educated people to take over these jobs when the time comes. Surely the big picture will ultimately be that all the people of California benefit from this solution.
For those Californians who are concerned about the rise in the sales tax by ¼ percent for four years, putting it in real terms, the person who buys an $8 burrito for lunch, it would result in a two cent increase on that burrito. For the very poorest of Californians who have to worry about every penny they spend we need to remember that sales tax is not charged on basic necessities.
As we look to the future of this Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30 lets keep in mind the fact that passing this measure will make an enormous contribution to our children’s education as well as our public safety and buy us the time we need to look deeper at fixing the long term budget problems of the State. In the words of American Novelist Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Bibliography:
California Federation of Teachers: http://www.cft.org/component/content/article/825.html
Proposition 30:
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Public Policy Institute of CA:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_409HJRB.pdf
Quote by Robin Cook:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/quotes.html
More and more college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education, however the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account mentioned and funds spent for education.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that set up the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has been on for many years.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation”. This grave statistic tells us that there is a great need to address the education in our State as a matter of urgency in order for there to be educated people to take over these jobs when the time comes. Surely the big picture will ultimately be that all the people of California benefit from this solution.
For those Californians who are concerned about the rise in the sales tax by ¼ percent for four years, putting it in real terms, the person who buys an $8 burrito for lunch, it would result in a two cent increase on that burrito. For the very poorest of Californians who have to worry about every penny they spend we need to remember that sales tax is not charged on basic necessities.
As we look to the future of this Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30 lets keep in mind the fact that passing this measure will make an enormous contribution to our children’s education as well as our public safety and buy us the time we need to look deeper at fixing the long term budget problems of the State. In the words of American Novelist Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Bibliography:
California Federation of Teachers: http://www.cft.org/component/content/article/825.html
Proposition 30:
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Public Policy Institute of CA:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_409HJRB.pdf
Quote by Robin Cook:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/quotes.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)