In his letter to the editor in today's Dispatch, King shows little grasp of elementary logic. Elementary illogic? Maybe.
The non sequitur:
King, in his own words, "We all gain by safe neighborhoods, engaged and successful families and businesses, an attractive workforce, higher property values and broader opportunities."
So how do my school district property tax dollars lead to an attractive workforce? Do my dollars fund cosmetology, skin care, clothing, etc? Hmmm.
OK, cheap shot. But fun nonetheless.
King makes a leap in logic when he attributes the above characteristics to a school district. Does the school district really cause families to be engaged and successful? Or is he just being circular and wanting to state the opposite causation? Or does he even know?
King, again in his own words, "Our administration has successfully demonstrated that we must have an effective balance between the educational opportunities that we enjoy with the attendant cost."
Can you spot the logical fallacy here? Hint: It's called begging the question.
Our administration has demonstrated what? How?
The administration may have argued for something called balance. But they have never demonstrated it.
We are in debt to you
Finally, there is this comment, "Our community accrues the benefits of a highly regarded school district and its graduates."
Our community and our children accrue only the district's debt, which stands at $390 million, give or take.
This may all explain why King has a "strong trust in the value of education as both immediate and longterm." Immediate and longterm what?
I think King's adjectives were looking to qualify these two nouns: taxes and debt.
But we knew that already.