Argument for
By David Goldberg, President, California Teachers Association; Katie Nilsson, RN, President, California School Nurses Organization; Jodi Hicks, President, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Glittering Generalities
PROPOSITION 3 PROTECTS OUR SCHOOLS, HEALTHCARE AND OUR COMMUNITIES WITHOUT RAISING YOUR TAXES.
Proposition 3 is NOT a new tax and does NOT raise taxes on anyone. Prop. 3 prevents millionaires and billionaires from getting a tax cut, and requires strict accountability and audits to ensure school funding gets to classrooms.
PROP. 3 PREVENTS BILLIONS IN CUTS TO OUR SCHOOLS AND HEALTHCARE.
Without Prop. 3, California’s 8 million public school and community college students face billions in cuts, including teacher layoffs, overcrowded classrooms and bigger class sizes. Families could lose access to preventive healthcare and affordable prescription drugs, and the Medi-Cal coverage that millions of Californians rely on could be put at risk.
PROP. 3 ONLY EXTENDS THE CURRENT TAX RATES ON THE WEALTHIEST TOP 2%.
Prop. 3 maintains the income tax rates that the wealthiest Californians have paid for the past 15 years. If those tax rates are allowed to expire, it would give millionaires and billionaires a massive tax cut at the expense of our classrooms, clinics and communities. Proposition 3 keeps the existing rates on the top 2% of incomes.
GUARANTEES THE MONEY REACHES THE CLASSROOM— NOT SACRAMENTO.
Proposition 3 includes Constitutional protections and tough accountability. It guarantees that funds from Proposition 3 go directly to local schools—the Legislature and Sacramento politicians cannot touch it, redirect it, or spend a single dollar on bureaucracy or administrative overhead. Prop. 3’s school guarantee then frees up billions that help fund Medi-Cal for children, seniors and families.
Every dollar in Prop. 3 is independently audited every year and any official who misuses the money faces prosecution and criminal penalties. Local school districts must post annual accounting online to guarantee that Californians know exactly how and where funds are spent.
PROP. 3 SECURES OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE.
Glittering Generalities · “SECURES OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE” — Vague, emotionally positive claim about 'our children's future' with no specific substance.
For more than a decade, these revenues have helped fund critical programs California families and communities count on—from school lunches, smaller class sizes and mental health counselors to children’s healthcare and Medi-Cal. They’ve also helped stave off cuts during economic downturns by investing more in the state’s Rainy Day Fund, protecting our schools and healthcare when the economy slows. Proposition 3 keeps that progress going for the next generation.
PROP. 3 IS SUPPORTED BY TEACHERS, NURSES, AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS.
Yes on 3 is supported by:
California State PTA
California Federation of Teachers
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
California School Nurses Organization
California Teachers Association
Community College League of California
Nurse Alliance of SEIU California
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA
The educators in our classrooms and the nurses who care for our kids all agree: Vote YES on Proposition 3. Let’s protect what matters most, without raising your taxes. Vote YES on Proposition 3.
www.YesProp3CA.com
From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.
Argument against
By Robert Gutierrez, President, California Taxpayers Association; Robert Rivinius, President, Family Business Association of California; Julian Canete, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Exaggeration/HyperboleLoaded LanguageRepetitionName CallingAppeal to FearBlack-and-White FallacyGlittering GeneralitiesScapegoatingCard Stacking
PROP. 3—TURNS “TEMPORARY” TAXES INTO PERMANENT HIGHER INCOME TAXES
Sacramento politicians make big promises to get our support for higher taxes. Then they spend our tax dollars with no accountability—losing billions to waste, fraud and overspending.
Take Prop. 3. Politicians told voters higher income taxes would be temporary—only for seven years to cover a budget deficit. Then those “temporary” taxes were extended for another 12 years with the promise to voters that the higher taxes would solve the problems the politicians created. Now the special interests and politicians want to make these higher income taxes PERMANENT.
California voters should say NO to PERMANENTLY higher income taxes.
PROP. 3—HIGHER INCOME TAXES = HIGHER COST OF LIVING
Californians have the nation’s highest cost of living partly because we also suffer from the highest income taxes, highest sales taxes and highest gas taxes of all fifty states. The same politicians also gave us the highest gasoline prices in the nation, higher insurance costs, higher utility costs, higher food costs, and higher housing costs. Now they want to make higher income taxes permanent, while adding new taxes on your health insurance, new taxes on software—and they are even considering a “jobs” tax. Say NO to INCREASING our cost of living with higher taxes.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “highest income taxes, highest sales taxes and highest gas taxes of all fifty states” — Stacks absolute superlatives ('highest' repeated) to overstate the tax burden.
Loaded Language · “we also suffer from”, “even considering a “jobs” tax” — Emotive verb frames taxation as something inflicted on people.
Repetition · “higher insurance costs, higher utility costs, higher food costs, and higher housing costs” — Repeats 'higher'/'highest' and 'costs' in a list to drive home the message through familiarity.
Name Calling · “The same politicians also gave us” — Labels opponents collectively as 'the same politicians' who inflicted harm, discrediting them rather than addressing specific policies.
Appeal to Fear · “Say NO to INCREASING our cost of living with higher taxes.” — Urges a reaction against threatened rising costs with emphatic capitalised words.
PROP. 3—VOTERS DESERVE REAL RESULTS, NOT BROKEN PROMISES
Black-and-White Fallacy · “REAL RESULTS, NOT BROKEN PROMISES” — Frames the choice as only real results versus broken promises, ignoring any middle ground.
Glittering Generalities · “VOTERS DESERVE REAL RESULTS” — Uses vague, positive-sounding language about what voters 'deserve' without any specifics.
Waste, fraud and overspending by state government is not an excuse to raise our taxes even higher.
The politicians and special interests promised temporary income taxes were needed to avoid big cuts to government programs. Since the “temporary” increases were first passed, government spending has increased by $150 billion—a more than 2.5X increase. Over the same time period, our schools, infrastructure and public safety have gotten worse. Say NO to endless broken promises.
NO ON PROP. 3—STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING
The politicians and special interests turned a $100 billion budget surplus into a $30 billion budget deficit in just three years. They mismanaged our tax dollars so badly, they now want voters to bail them out with permanently higher taxes.
Scapegoating · “The politicians and special interests turned a $100 billion budget surplus into a $30 billion budget deficit” — Blames a vaguely defined group ('the politicians and special interests') for a broad, complex fiscal swing without naming specific actions or decisions.
Loaded Language · “mismanaged our tax dollars so badly”, “bail them out” — Emotionally charged phrasing ('mismanaged so badly', 'bail them out') frames opponents as incompetent and demanding rescue.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “bail them out with permanently higher taxes” — Overstates the situation by claiming the tax proposal is a 'bailout' for politicians and that taxes would be 'permanently' higher.
Say NO to $100 billion wasted on a train to nowhere.
Loaded Language · “wasted on a train to nowhere” — Emotionally charged phrasing like 'wasted' and 'train to nowhere' frames the project negatively without evidence.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “$100 billion wasted on a train to nowhere” — Describing the rail project as a 'train to nowhere' and its entire cost as wasted overstates the case beyond evidence.
Say NO to $37 billion wasted on homeless programs that don’t work.
Loaded Language · “wasted” — The word 'wasted' is emotionally charged and presents the spending as pure waste rather than conveying facts.
Card Stacking · “homeless programs that don’t work” — It asserts flatly that the programs 'don't work' without evidence or acknowledgment of any successes or complexities.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “$37 billion wasted” — It sweepingly claims the entire $37 billion was wasted and that the programs wholly fail, an absolute overstatement.
Say NO to $31 billion wasted on unemployment fraud.
Loaded Language · “wasted on unemployment fraud” — Emotionally charged framing of spending as 'wasted' and as 'fraud' to provoke a reaction rather than convey specifics.
NO ON PROP. 3—FIX SACRAMENTO’S SPENDING PROBLEM BEFORE RAISING TAXES
California doesn’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. California’s population barely grew in the past 10 years, but the politicians more than doubled spending.
It’s not just state taxes that keep going up. Politicians and special interests have imposed more than 2,000 new local tax increases in just the past ten years—making it much harder for struggling Californians to make ends meet.
Californians shouldn’t support any higher taxes until we get spending under control.
STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING.
From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.