Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 13, 2001)
Tuesday Editor in chief: Jack Clifford Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com George W. ’s tax cut cannot tell a lie SAINTS AND PROFITS ERIC PFEIFFER There are two ways of look ing at the tax cuts pro posed by President Bush. Those making an argu ment in support of his plan argue that the reductions will benefit all tax-paying Americans. The com mon claim thrown out there is that the average working family would receive a return of approximately $1,200 this year alone. Bush now calls it “an insurance plan against an unpredictable economy. ” Six months ago, he said the cuts were necessary in re sponse to a super economy that was giving too much money to the American government. Whichever spin suits your palate, the basic philosophy is that we paid too much for our government and now it’s time to ask what our country can do for us. Congressional Democrats have been doing their best to fight Bush’s plan for more than a year now. Af ter all, Democrats claim that more than 40 percent of the proposed tax cuts will benefit just 1 percent of the population. The wealthiest 1 percent. Does that sound fair to you? I’ve spent a lot of time listening to people on both sides of the tax cut issue. There are extremists who say the proposed tax cuts aren’t enough and other extremists who say there shouldn’t be any tax cuts at all. Fighting for position near the middle ground are those who are debating the appropriate size of the tax cuts and ju6t whom they should benefit most. Do Bush’s tax cuts predominantly benefit the wealthy? Yes, they do. Does that make them wrong? Not necessari ly. I’ll make the argument that the Bush tax cut is in fact the most fair but not necessarily the most effec tive. While the wealthiest 1 percent truly would receive about 40 per cent of the reductions, they also pay the vast majority of taxes. While I wish our wealthiest 1 percent behaved more like gener ous citizens, I don’t think we should force them to act that way through guilt and legislation. Rich people are not evil for being suc cessful; what’s evil, or at least un fair, is a system in which the rest of us don’t have the opportunity to catch up. This is where the Bush proposal runs into some tall hurdles. First of all, I don’t buy for one second the idea that our benevolent, wealthy citizens are going to put their gen erous tax cuts back into the econo my. Even if they do, that extra mon ey is not going to have a significant impact on the worker making a set wage of $7 per hour. We tried trick le-down economics for more than a decade, and it doesn’t work. The second big hurdle facing Bush’s tax proposal is in the math. During congressional committee hearings, testimony stated that, in fact, the average working family would not receive a $1,200 benefit from the tax cuts. The actual num ber was closer to $200. Those ru mored thousand-dollar returns would not begin taking effect for at least another six years. Not exactly a winning formula for jump-start ing a shaky economy. Personally, I would love it if President Bush would stand before the cameras and tell Americans ex actly what his tax cut proposals re ally mean, and not because I’m a Democrat, and I think his propos als have some serious flaws. It’s be cause I believe there are actually some very positive points to his proposals that at this point still make them superior to the counter points proposed by congressional Democrats. The most admirable thing about Bush’s proposal is that it actually is targeted at American citizens. Un like the proposals of former Presi dents Bush and Clinton, this is not a cut targeted pri marily at cor porate and other large business inter ests. This is hard to admit as a Democrat, but Bush has done an amazing job of standing up to the pressure from busi ness interests to alter his proposals. We never got that much from Clinton. In tact, his proposal reminds me a lot of the 1986 cut proposed by for mer President Reagan and approved by a Democrat controlled Congress. While that tax cut was probably too immediate and large for the economy, it did primarily benefit individuals. It also closed several nasty loop holes that allowed the wealthy to maximize their deductions in ways average citizens could never dream of doing. Unfortunately, in the past 15 years, most of those loopholes have been re opened and widened. If the president and Congress really want to help the average American, they should approve a large tax cut. But they should make sure it is fair to all Americans and that it will truly help those most in need. That requires more than just big numbers; it takes even bigger leadership. President Bush is starting to show that he really can be a strong moral and political leader when he wants to be. He could build the kind of re spect Clinton never earned if he maintains his stance of offering tax cuts to individuals and not primari ly to corporate interests. More im portantly, he has the opportunity to earn the trust of most Americans by telling us exactly why he wants tax cuts across the board. We spend too much time fighting the war of the rich against the poor. If we really want to make progress on the social and economic issues that matter to most people, we have to be up front about what gaps need to be filled and who has the resources to fill those gaps. President Bush speaks a lot of re specting the views of all Ameri cans and bringing an era of com passionate conservatism to the political landscape. While he’s out Bryan Dixon Emerald touring the country in support of his plan, he should spend just as much time en couraging his base, that wealthiest 1 percent, to be compassionate with their tax cuts and give at least part of their earnings back to the people who need them most. If that were to happen, then he truly could call himself a uniter and not a divider. Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessari ly represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at epfeiffe@gladstone.uore gon.edu. Multicultural Center’s mission of unity needs funds Guest Commentary Alex Luu |his is a letter of rebuttal to the Emer ald’s editorial [’’Vote yes on OS PIRG, no on MCC,” ODE, March 5] JL on voting against the Multicultural Center. Although I am not a student on cam pus, I was a guest artist and have just recent ly completed a three-and-a-half-week work shop there, sponsored by Asian-Pacific American Student Union and the MCC. The workshop was called “My Own Story,” and it allowed students of color a unique oppor tunity to tell their stories, family histories and cultural heritage in a creative perform ance/theater context. The workshop culmi nated in a powerful evening of honest, raw and ultimately empowering performances. The audience was truly moved, entertained and inspired. As a matter of fact, the Emer ald covered the event. The editorial talks a good talk about sup porting the MCC’s mission statement of hav ing “culturally diverse programming,” but unfortunately, it’s just talk. This half-assed stance is downright condescending and in sulting. Anyone knows that when it comes to diversity and equal representation, agree ing with it philosophically is just not enough. There needs to be action. And that’s what the MCC does every day. However, in order to fulfill its mission statement, it des perately needs these extra funds. The two main reasons for opposition in the editorial are trivial, weak and most importantly, do not address the problem. First of all, the editorial claims that it is “not convinced that all groups will be en couraged to visit the MCC when seeking money for events.” What is this reasoning based on? Hearsay? Assumption at best? Secondly, the editorial believes that “when the MCC has a written plan for exe cuting this cultural programming fund, we may support it. In the meantime, we ask you to vote no.” Just because the MCC may not have a piece of paper outlining every single item the funds would go to does not mean it is incapable of doing so. Furthermore, not having a piece of paper outlining every single item does not mean the MCC doesn’t need the funds. That is the heart of the issue. Not some official docu ment outlining every line item. Not just agreeing with the concept of cultural pro gramming, which the Emerald editorial smugly does. Once again, action. Not just talk. Maybe the reason some student groups don’t appeal to the MCC for funds is because the MCC doesn’t have enough funds to be gin with. Simply put, the amount the MCC is asking for is paltry compared to other campus organizations’ funding. I am not saying that other campus organi zations are less important than the MCC. But like other campus organizations, the MCC deserves equal consideration and should re ceive more funds for its programming. With out the MCC and the small student groups that it encompasses, culturally diverse pro gramming — guest artists of color, speakers, heritage nights, films, etc. — will suffer a monumental blow. What may happen is gentrification of thought, attitude and per spectives. And I doubt that the University would be proud of that. In a time when there are still racial inci dents on campus as well as in society at large, diverse multicultural programming can at least address issues that need to be discussed. For the sake of not only cultural ly diverse programming, but also the MCC’s mission to unite rather than divide, I urge the student body to vote yes for the MCC. Alex Luu is a performer and workshop director in Los Angeles.
