CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL: P.O. BOX3159
ode@oregon uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: darkwing.uoregon.edu/-ode
Perspectives
I
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
A new bill would allow rich parents to give their
children more while continuing to destroy the^:
public education system }
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
It has always been profitable to be the child of
rich parents. Now that profit might become tax
deductible.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently
passed a bill that would allow parents in most in
come brackets to save up to $2,500 each year for
their children’s educational expenses without hav
ing to pay taxes on the savings accounts. The mon
ey can go to any educational purpose, including
private school tuition, uniform costs, school sup
plies or even transportation costs.
The Washington Post quoted one member of the
National School Boards Association as describing
the bill as “the BMW tax subsidy act.” That’s one
way of explaining it, but we can think of some oth
er names that fit a little better.
This bill represents the worst in a long series of
bad ideas about education to come out of the Re
publicans in Congress. From school vouchers to
prayer in school, the majority of Congress has been
pushing to transform our public school system into
a private marketplace set up to meet the needs of
the financial and cultural elite in our country.
Congress praises such ideas because they pro
vide choice for education consumers. The problem
is that, for most of us, education isn’t about con
sumer choices; it is about providing a basic level of
competency to allow us to survive in a modem so
ciety. We don’t pick high schools because of the
color of their uniforms or the denomination of the
chapel at which students are compelled to wor
ship; we go to our neighborhood school and hope
the voters are still willing to pay for books.
Even Bill Clinton, who has hardly proven to be a
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
great fan of the poor in his time in office, has
pledged to veto the House proposal. It isn’t a diffi
cult decision.
The bill would allow couples who make up to
$150,000 to contribute to the tax-free accounts.
Clearly, this is not a proposal designed to aid what
the average person considers the middle class, de
spite Republican claims to the contrary.
It takes a family with a six-digit income to take
full advantage of this proposal. Not only can most
poor families not afford to put aside $500, much
less $2,500 in savings every year, but those families
certainly can’t afford the additional money the tax
free accounts don’t cover.
Paying to put a student through private school
costs more than $2,500 annually. More significant
ly, you only reduce your taxes if you place the
money in an interest-bearing account — not if you
spend it directly from your paycheck.
The real beneficiaries of the tax-free accounts
will not be middle-class families who manage to
scrape up enough money to send their children to a
private school; they will be wealthy couples who
already have the tuition money and who use the
accounts to pay for extra educational perks.
Beyond this, encouraging middle-class families
to send their students to private schools is not a
good idea. If the law achieved its intended effect, it
would be an even worse piece of legislation.
A large portion of the cost of schools is paid by
the middle class in the form of taxes. While it
would be nice to see this redistributed so that cor
porations and wealthy individuals pay a bigger
share, the fact remains that a big chunk of school
funding is always going to come from those with
average incomes.
If these middle-class families begin to decide the
public school system is no longer capable of serv
ing their interests, they will turn to private schools.
Forced to pay private tuition along with the taxes
for public schools, the families will be justly upset.
Encouraging people to attend private schools
won’t cause public schools to increase their quality
in the interest of competition. Instead, families will
prove more reluctant to fund the public schools,
causing those schools to degrade even further.
As public schools collapse and the middle class
flee the wreckage, the poor and lower-middle class
will be the ones who are trapped inside. Unable to
raise the price of tuition, they will be stuck with an
inferior education while those able to fund school
ing refuse because the system is no longer “com
petitive.”
Of course, none of that matters to the representa
tives who proposed the bill. Most of their children
are safely locked up in private institutions where
the realities of the rich/poor gap and the degrading
educational system can never reach them. If the
House has its way, this will remain the case — but
now their kids will have a new computer to help
them hide from the world.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald ed
itorial hoard. Responses may l>e sent to
ode@oregon. uoregon edu
LETTERS TD THE EDiTOR
Campus crusaders missing
Dave Frohnmayer calls Asians
“Orientals" and feels compelled to
wear a hair shirt. Betty Taylor makes
an honest appraisal, in private, and
the local media, the members of
which obviously have too much free
time, go ballistic. But Diane Baxter is
quoted (ODE, Oct. 15) as saying,
“Khalidi is one of those people who,
despite the fact that he, himself, is a
Palestinian, wants to see a resolution
[to the Middle East peace process],”
and although nearly two weeks have
passed, the campus crusaders re
main strangely silent.
Now I see two possible reasons for
this: Either Professor Khalidi has the
misfortune of belonging to one of the
few groups (white, heterosexual
males being another) about which it
is permissible to make any negative
comment, or else nobody is reading
the Emerald these days.
I'll accept either explanation.
William Smee
University staff
Take responsibility
Michael Hines’ article about the
University drug survey (ODE, Oct.
17) opened with the statement: "Al
cohol and drugs can cause riots, as
saults and rapes. Given this fact...”
How can we hold such miscon
ceptions when there is so much in
formation to the contrary?
1 find it disturbing that you have
put forth this misinformation and
misconception as fact! People com
mit violent crimes and sometimes
drugs and alcohol are contributing
factors.
As adults, we need to be responsi
ble for our decisions and behavior.
We cannot hold drugs or alcohol re
sponsible for our actions. We don’t
send drugs or alcohol to prison —
we send people to prison for their
crimes, regardless of what the influ
ences are.
We make conscious choices in our
lives; some of these choices include
drug and alcohol use. If we commit
a crime while under the influence of
a drug, we are still accountable for
our actions. Let’s not condone crime
by making drug use an excuse!
Dan Hodger
Eugene
Thumbs
TO OREGON’S
RANCHING LAWS:
Doctor owns land.
Doctor’s neighbor
owns cows. Cows
break doctor’s
fence and graze on
doctor’s land. Doc
tor shoots cows.
Doctor could go to
jail for more than
55 years for unau
thorized use of
livestock and other
crimes, according
to the Associated
Press. Clearly, this
isn’t a simple sto
ry. Under ranching
laws in Oregon and
other parts of the
West, landowners
can be held liable
for the fate of live
stock grazing on
their property, re
gardless of who
owns the animals.
The same ranchers
and other Wise
Use fanatics who
have been rallying
in favor of property
rights obviously
think people’s abil
ity to control their
land ends when it
comes to cows.
Cattle ranchers
benefit from
ridiculously low
fees on public
lands and a variety
of other subsidies.
They don't need
the added protec
tion of laws giving
their cows special
privileges on pri
vate lands.
TO DUCK SAVER
CAROS:
For $5 you can buy
a card that will al
low you to save
money the next
time you crave a
midnight snack. At
the same time, you
can help the Chil
dren’s Miracle Net
work; all proceeds
from the cards go
to the charitable
group. Cards can
be purchased near
campus at U.S.
Bank, Blue Heron
Bicycles and Face
the Music.
TO SLEEP:
The end of Day
light Savings Time
brought us all an
extra hour of sleep.
Frankly, after a
month of class and
production, we
needed it.