Rhetoric of Fear The Death of the California Dream Health Care in Perspective The Discipline Leave No Child Behind No Daddy, No! Unconditional Equal Justice under the Law Thank God I Am Not A Woman Infallible "Don't ask, don't tell" Thou Shalt Not Kill Irreconcilable Differences My Will Positive Reinforcement Changing My Name After Sixty Years Copyright © 2000-2009 Thomas E. Rosenberg. All right reserved. Essays may be reproduced with written permission. tomr@inaword.org

The elimination of negative words brings clarity to speech Rhetoric of Fear In 1978, before the passage of Proposition 13, California ranked second nationally in spending per student. Three decades later, California is very near or at the bottom. As California’s economy struggles to recover from a two-year recession, its K-12 school districts are facing a crisis. The state’s loss in revenues has resulted in public school cuts of $ 9 billion a year. School districts throughout California are being forced to lay off teachers, counselors, administrative staff, and cut programs. Class size is increasing and subject matter has been compromised. The budget cuts have hit the poor hardest. The chances of white or Asian/American students graduating from high school are slightly higher than two in three; the odds of African/American or Hispanic students graduating are but one in three. Three decades ago, every California high school graduate could attend the state college of choice with out having to pay tuition. Today, the fees charged by the state’s colleges and universities have placed higher education out of the reach of many and prolong the time needed to graduate for others. Making matters worse, this fall U.C. Berkeley intends to enroll about 15 percent fewer Californians, while nearly doubling its international and out-of-state enrollees. The higher tuition rate charged out-of-state students will generate millions of dollars to offset some of the budget cuts. The enrollees most affected by the cuts will be African/American and Hispanic students. The roots of today’s educational crisis were planted with the passage of Proposition 13. That ballot initiative, introduced in 1978, was a reaction to rising property taxes. Proposition 13 reduced the allowable increase in property taxes to percent a year and also shifted the burden of financing public education from local governments to the state. Critics of Proposition 13 were ignored by a campaign that promoted fear, especially among seniors, that Proposition 13 was needed to save people from being taxed out of their homes. So effective was the Proposition 13 campaign that the day after its passage then Governor Jerry Brown became a self-described born-again tax cutter. Proposition 13’s legacy is its demagogic roots - it led to an era of anti-tax and anti-big government rhetoric. Conservatives make “tax and spend” and “growing the size of government” synonymous with waste and a loss of freedom. That negative rhetoric killed health reform efforts in the 1990’s and spurred an effort by the recent Bush administration to privatize Social Security. In California, Republican legislators are using the two-thirds vote needed to pass the budget as a tactic to block any tax increases. The two-thirds mandate dates back to 1933 but it has only become an issue in recent years. By projecting a climate of fear, the “tax and spend” label raises demagoguery to a new high. By voting in a block, its promoters make government dysfunctional. That aspect has hampered the legislative and budgeting process. A budget that can get only a majority vote is held up frequently by a partisan vote. Rather than raise taxes in times of need, the Governor chooses to balance a budget off the backs of children living in poverty, the elderly and infirm. Those promoting the “tax and spend” label – the insurance and drug companies, banks and others who resist regulation – prosper, while 14 million Californians live in poverty, one in ten are out of work and the state’s infrastructure, parks and schools are in bad shape. Every political operator learns in Campaign l01 that it’s easier to exploit the public’s anger and get voters to vote “No” than “Yes.” That anger is understandable. But the 2008 presidential campaign, based on hope, demonstrated that a positive message can prevail over the rhetoric of fear that arrogantly obfuscates and confuses issues to stop government from doing its job. ### Tom Rosenberg is the author of a novel, Phantom on His Wheel, and is working on a memoir.