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.