mm——i Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas Newsroom: (541)346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu Monday January 10,2000 Volume 101, Issue 72 Eitterald uneauc Everyone wants to see crime punished, but most of us re alize there are appropriate levels of such punishment for a given crime. And the recent pro posal to suspend federal financial aid from some students with an illegal drug conviction is too severe in the maimer it is written. The first of many problems with the plan to disqualify students from receiving federal aid for the upcom ing school year is that it would in clude those with prior drug convic tions. New consequences should always start after die rule goes into ef fect, in this case July 1, and not be fore. It would be incredibly unfair to retroactively seek out students to whom to deny aid. Besides the fairness of including prior convictions, one of the most pressing concerns in this issue is the slippery slope of government peering into personal lives. Whether the gov eminent should be examining the be haviors of its citizens before doling out money is an important question that will always raise the ire of in formed citizens, regardless of their stance on the issue. In this instance, government would be taking money away from those in need of it for vast ly varying degrees of offenses against society. As irony would have it, those who would be hurt most by this mle are those who need to be attending school to brighten their future prospects. For many, receiving feder al aid is the only way they can attend school, which is now universally rec ognized as a necessity for material success in the coming century. Those who would lose the ability to attend school — over what could theoreti cally amount to a very petty crime — would face a life sentence of menial work. This creates a double jeopardy through natural consequences, even though someone would have paid their codified debt to society. That, indeed, would be a disproportionate penalty. Without positively knowing the in tent behind this policy, we can only assume it is another “get-tough-on crime” measure designed to show the stalwart support for fighting drugs. That would be fine if it were better planned out and had a middle ground to it. The general notion of this policy seems palatable to most: punishment for crime. But this policy totally ig nores any middle ground between no financial consequence at all and what has been illustrated to be a pos sibly life-altering punishment. There should be a probationary period, mandatory drug counseling or some well-reasoned hybrid of the two. While the concern over a prying gov ernment would still loom , a middle step that would stave off taking school away from a student would make this plan more worthy of sup port. Because this is a decision that has already been made, students can ar gue over the merits of the policy but still must live by its rules nonethe less. There doesn’t seem to be any thing that can be done save being in formed on the repercussions, if any, that may apply. Even instances where little can presently be done to alter a policy, it is still important to keep a healthy ar gument brewing in the hopes our rep resentatives will listen. And if they do, they should hear that this educa tion policy is poorly planned, target ed against those who need federal aid the most and lacks any reasonable middle ground. That’s one uneducat ed plan. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. It’s time for students to stand up to Sizemore Students should take notice of Bill Size more’s initiative on the upcoming ballot; if it passes it will have a devastat ing impact on their pocket books. Loser in the last gubernato rial campaign, Sizemore is promoting an initiative for the November ballot that could be the worst thing for Oregon schools since Ballot Measure 5. For 1990’s gradu ates of Oregon high schools, that memory is still quite fresh. First the impact to the state, student and individual. Sizemore’s initiative will cut more than $1.66 billion dol lars out of the general fund during the 2001-2003 bienni um, approximately a 14 per cent cut. This will mean dra matic cuts in services to the citizens of this state, espe cially community colleges and higher education. Since Measure 5 was passed, tuition at Oregon’s community colleges and uni versities rose well over 90 percent. The increases oc curred because of backwards measures like this one. This new initiative will have an even greater impact on our tuition costs. The measure would go into effect after No vember 2000, and with only eight months left in the 1999 2001 biennium the state would see 1 billion dollars of its almost 4 billion dollar budget cut. That represents a 25 percent cut to the state’s services dining that time. With a 25 percent cut in state services, what will hap pen to students enrolled in schools across the state? Un doubtedly tuition will rise — some say it could rise as high as $500 mid year. This will force many students out of school. Also program offer ings will be cut as faculty are laid off to make room for budget cuts. The initiative would allow Oregon income taxpayers to deduct all of the federal taxes they pay from their state re turns. Currently, taxpayers filing single and joint returns can deduct a maximum of $3,000 of federal taxes, and corporate taxpayers can’t deduct any. Sizemore has submitted more than 100,000 signatures to get his initiative on the No vember 2000 ballot, and it’s expected to qualify easily. The measure would make the tax cut retroactive to Jan uary 2000, concentrating the entire financial meltdown into the last seven months of Oregon’s two-year budget. The taxpayers would get about $1 billion in tax cuts in the' budget period, according to the Legislative Revenue Office. Those tax savings would translate into cuts of more than 20 percent in state programs, including schools and colleges, which are paid for mostly with state income tax revenues. Sizemore wants to pass an other initiative that would re quire voter approval of any tax or fee increases. That could automatically put any legislative response to the tax-cut initiative back on the ballot. I am sick and tired of let ting Sizemore run our state. I was a peer advisor in college when Measure 5 passed, and I saw dozens of people forced out of school because they could not afford the mid year $501.00 increase in tu ition. I witnessed the stu dents who had to leave Ore gon State University and the University due to program cuts and faculty layoffs. Students must stand up and be counted on this one. We have to teach ourselves about this ballot measure, stand up to Sizemore and tell him we have had enough. Help students register to vote, help students learn about this measure and help students defeat Sizemore. Ed Dennis is the executive director of the Oregon Student Association. His views do not necessarily repre sent those of the paper. Thumbs To a Sip!