msnmxm
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL: P.0. B0X3159
ode@oregon uoregon edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/-ode
ft BMSttMttMK
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
Clinton’s childcare plan is only a start
WH tratHftlP CPiTOHfflL
Although admirable,
Clinton’s proposed tax
breaks don’t do enough
It’s no secret Bill Clinton is
not our favorite human being.
Too often, the president’s
policies read more like they
were written in corporate board
rooms than in the Oval Office.
Nevertheless, Clinton occasion
ally hits upon an important issue.
His proposal last week to increase
funding for a variety of federal
programs that ease the cost of
childcare reflects that ability to
stumble upon something the
American people need.
Inadequate childcare is one of
the biggest problems facing poor
and middle class families. Child
care represents a major expense
for families, but without available
care, parents cannot earn the
money needed to raise a family.
rroviaing care tor children has
proven especially troublesome for
single parents on welfare. New
laws require welfare recipients to
leave the program after two years,
regardless of employment or fam
ily status.
For many single parents, this
restriction is devastating. Unem
ployed or poorly paid parents
cannot afford to place their chil
dren in care during work hours,
making it impossible for them to
work.
Clinton’s proposal hardly
solves this problem. The bulk of
the aid comes in the form of tax
credits that reimburse parents for
the cost of care.
Unfortunately, such credits do
not help parents who make so lit
tle money they don’t pay federal
income tax. In addition, they
don’t help parents who don’t
have the money to pay for day
care immediately available, as
the credits don’t come into play
until the end of the year when
taxes are paid.
This isn’t to say the money
won’t help lower middle-class
families. The problem is provid
ing care for those even farther
down the economic ladder.
Clinton’s plan does contain two
proposals that might help solve
this difficulty. One is a tax break
for businesses that provide child
care facilities, equal to one-fourth
the money spent on such services.
While the idea of having busi
nesses provide childcare for their
workers is admirable, the reality
of corporate-funded services is
more troublesome. For one thing,
the tax break is limited, meaning
large companies will have less in
centive to fund care, despite the
large number of lower income
workers who are often employed
at such companies.
In addition, the tax break only
partially funds day care, leading
to the likely effect of reduced
wages “compensating” for the
benefit of company-provided
care. Finally, the history of such
business-run programs is poor;
companies often cut services to
the bare minimum, harming those
served in the process.
Another one of Clinton’s plans
would give more money to states
in the form of so-called “block
grants.” These grants would be
designated for childcare but
would otherwise have few restric
tions on their use.
Ideally, this money would go to
poor families that otherwise
would not benefit from Clinton’s
tax breaks. Unfortunately, this is
only in the ideal world.
The reality of such grants is that
we don’t know what will happen
to them. If they went directly to
families, Clinton’s plan could
work fairly well. If the money was
restricted or came with strings at
tached, the plan could still fail to
address the fundamental reason
why federal support for childcare
is necessary.
By making childcare, education
and child health priorities, Clin
ton is addressing a crucial issue.
In addition, his proposals take an
important step toward solving
this issue.
Until Clinton does more to ad
dress the fundamental issues un
derlying childcare in this coun
try, however, his proposals will
not go far enough. Families who
are losing welfare support with
out any assistance intended to
ease the transition or help the
children are not going to be saved
by simply providing more tax
credits.
Instead, a restructuring of the
way childcare and work are ap
proached in this nation is neces
sary. We admire Clinton for tak
ing a step, but caution those who
would praise him that he has a
long race to run.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board. Re
sponses may be sent to ode@ore
gon.uoregon.edu
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
uontroi pesticides
I am writing because I am concerned
about a very important issue. The use of
pesticides in Oregon has skyrocketed in
the last few decades. In 1996, there were
approximately 9,000 pesticides registered
for use in the state. Pesticides are poisons!
They are the only class of toxic chemicals
that are deliberately released into the en
vironment specifically to kill living organ
isms.
Though all of these things are true, we
don’t have the right to know about what
pesticides are being used in our commu
nity and on our foods, such as fruits and
vegetables. We are being kept in the dark
about these poisons, which can cause
such long-term health effects as cancer
and reproductive disorders.
For all of these reasons, OSPIRG is wag
mg a campaign against the use of pesti
cides and for the right to know about what
pesticides are being used, where and on
what crops. We are organizing a statewide
campaign to pressure Gov. Kitzhaber to
expand our right to know about pesticide
use here in Oregon.
Students need to take a lead in this cam
paign. We have to protect ourselves and
our future generations from the harmful
health effects of pesticides, not to mention
protect the environment from the damage
that pesticides can cause. We must take it
upon ourselves to get involved and affect
these problems.
The best way to do this is to get in
volved with the OSPIRG pesticides pro
ject group, which will be planning a Pesti
cide Free Community Project to raise
awareness around the issue. We will also
be working on a grassroots campaign to
expand our right to know about pesticide
use in Oregon.
Interested students can get upper divi
sion course credit at the same time
through our internship program. We offer
three to 12 credits a term for doing work
on issues that interest you, including pes
ticides. Internships are also available for
working on our other campaigns, which
are Hunger and Homelessness, Environ
mental Education, Streamwalk and En
dangered Species.
For more information about pesticides
or internships, contact the OSPIRG office
at 346-4377. The most important thing is
that you get involved and make a differ
ence on the issues that concern you.
Glenda Marchall
OSPIRG
LETTERS POLICY
The Emerald accepts letters from
members of the University and Eu
gene community, preferably under
400 words. Shorter letters will re
ceive higher priority. Op-ed pieces
will only be printed, at the discretion
of the editor, if they are written by an
authority about a pertinent issue.
Letters can be submitted in person
at EMU, Suite 300, mailed to P.O.
Box 3159, Eugene, OR, 97403, or e
mailed to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Please include your full name and
telephone number for confirmation.
The Emerald reserves the right to
edit for length or style.