Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, January 23,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
Measure 28 isn’t
perfect, but it is
needed right now
Despite all of the euts-are-coming media coverage of Mea
sure 28 in the past few weeks, opponents of the measure
have offered some rational-sounding arguments. None of
them outweigh the necessity of the added revenue the in
come tax increase would produce, but we’ll walk through
them anyway.
• Oregonians are already taxed too much.
Actually, no. Oregon ranks 41st among the 50 states in state
and local taxes as a percentage of income, according to the Tax
Foundation, which uses federal data. At the same time, the
National Conference of State Legislatures shows that Oregon
ranks 8th among the 50 states in total budget gaps. Clearly,
taxpayers are not paying enough to fund state services.
• Increasing income taxes isn’t a stable way to fund state
government.
We agree. As the previous rankings show, our legislators
need to find a new budget solution. And Oregonians should
demand that from their legislators. But a quick solution is
not in the offing (despite recent reports of a “secret plan” to
save services); if there was some “funding pixie dust,” the
Legislature had plenty of time last summer to sprinkle it on
the state. Lawmakers didn’t do that because state funding is
a fundamental problem that needs a long-term, compre
hensive solution.
• Even though the increase is only for three years, the
Legislature couldfind a sneaky way to make it permanent
Yes, theoretically, Oregon lawmakers could do that. They
could also find a fair, stable, balanced form of funding for
state government, but given how unlikely either scenario is
for our weak-willed elected officials, vote yes on 28.
• This income tax increase hits individuals harder than
businesses.
This is true; the tax rate for individuals would rise to 9.5
percent from 9 percent, while the tax rate for businesses
would rise to 6.93 percent from 6.6 percent. But this argu
ment, too, calls for fundamental change.
In the late 1970s, the tax burden was nearly evenly split be
tween individuals and businesses. According to state sources,
individuals now carry nearly 70 percent of the burden. This
shift was slow, although a good portion of it occurred with
Measure 5’s property tax limitation in 1990and Measure 50’s
locking of property tax values and rates in 1997.
Combined, the two measures dramatically reduced the
value and tax rate of business property while slightly in
creasing household property taxes. Shifting the burden back
will depend on individual taxpayers demanding equity, but it
won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, the state will
hemorrhage vital services.
• Higher income taxes willfurther hurt a recession-dam
aged economy.
Actually, not funding state services will hurt all Oregoni
ans even more. Gutting funds to help juvenile offenders will
create more hardened criminals. Gutting education will
make Oregon workers less able to compete for high-paying
jobs. Gutting medical, housing and drug services will cost
the state’s infrastructure. Gutting public safety will shift costs
onto crime victims. In the short-term, Oregon needs Mea
sure 28’s slight relief.
• Everyone couMprovideservicesJbr themselves if they
would work harder.
This argument comes from greed and the basest parts of
humanity. As civilized human beings, we need to reject this
argument; however, a better reason to reject it is that it’s not
true. The most vulnerable parts of Oregon’s population —
our neighbors who weren’t given the equal footing to provide
for themselves—will be hurt if Measure 28 fails. As a wealthy,
civilized society, we have not only the means but also the ra
tional duty to provide some basics for those people.
Measure 28 is a necessary, short-term investment in
Oregon, despite the fact that it’s not perfect. Demand long
term solutions from legislators, but vote yes on Measure
28 right now.
This editorial represent* the opinion of the
r femraid editorial board. Responses can be serR.
to letters #dailyemeraid.com. Letters are
f' limited to 250 words and guest commentaries
to 550 words,
rifle IX’s fighting power
Last rail, a group of five law students
won their third consecutive intramural
women’s volleyball tide. Like other intra
mural championships, this one hap
pened with little fanfare — but it de
serves closer attention.
The team included two former Division
I volleyball players as well as a former
state champion in track. Perhaps their
team’s success was preordained. Less
obvious is the connection to their success
beyond the athletic
field. These women
are known among
their peers as star
students, editors of
the Law Review and
leaders in student
government.
I spoke with my
classmate Jodee
Scott, who played
volleyball at the
University of Ten
nessee and North
Philip
Huang
A different light
em Michigan. She believes that playing
sports taught her a wide variety of skills.
Sports allowed her “to be good at some
thing” and gave her ’’the confidence to
stand out.” Speaking up in class came
more easily.
The varied demands of college athletics
“teaches you discipline and time manage
ment,” she said. As a college athlete, Scott
did volunteer work with her
teammates. She spoke to
wealthy, blue-blooded bene
factors. She won and lost
games in front of 1,500
people. These experiences
built character and “made
me look at success in a
different way.”
Despite her multiple in
juries, Scott wouldn’t trade
her volleyball days for anything.
Dedication and goal setting, abilities
honed in athletics, are vital for law school
success. So is the ability to work with peo
ple, which she does frequently as presi
dent of the Student Bar Association.
For Scott, the term “student athlete” is
not an oxymoron. Athletics helped her,
and thousands like her, become better
students and more dynamic citizens.
One major reason is Title IX.
Title IX, passed by Congress in 1972,
prohibits sex discrimination in federally
aided education programs. Women now
make up a majority of college students,
and are no longer rarities at medical, law
and business schools. Because of Title IX,
America has become a more equal, edu
cated and prosperous nation.
Title IX applies to college athletics, to
the dismay of some male sports fans. To
reach parity, many colleges have cut
men’s sports rather than increase
women’s scholarships. The real culprit is
football, which hogs an inordinate
amount of men’s scholarships and diverts
students 1
from books with promises of riches.
College women’s sports seem compat
ible with academics in a way some men’s
sports are not.
According to a recent NCAA report, 69
percent of female athletes graduate in six
years, compared to 54 percent for their
male counterparts. But at the University,
the rate is 67 and 66 percent, respective
ly. Not only do we graduate most of our
football players, but athletes graduate at
a higher rate than all students.
But success is relative. The University
has graduated just 59 percent of all fresh
men from the 1995-1996 class, which
puts it above only Oregon State, Arizona
and Arizona State in the Pacific-10 Con
ference, according to the report.
Those schools are hardly academic
powerhouses. It’s great that our athletes
graduate at higher-than-average rates, a
testament to their time management
skills and the school’s support system.
But we need to raise the educational bar
Steve Baggs Emerald
for all students. Public uni
versities UCLA and Berkeley
graduate 82 percent of their stu
dents. For the University to graduate less
than 3 out of 5 students is beyond laugh
able. It’s sad.
The situation won’t get better soon.
The University is not spending money
needed to keep up with the Pac-10 in ac
ademics, Instead, the University receives
less and less support from Salem. Boost
ers spend millions in distant cities to pro
mote star athletes who won’t graduate.
And the Bush administration formed a
commission last summer to “review” Ti
tle IX. Will they practice good sports
manship, or will they change the rules of
the game?
Supporting Title IX doesn’t just level
the playing field, it also invites young
women to excel on that field and beyond.
Contact the columnist
at philiphuang@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily reflect
those of the Emerald.
Letter to the editor
King wouldn’t support
anti-war protesters
Monday’s nationwide anti-American
ism orgy was timed to coincide with
Martin Luther King Jr. day. This was
supposedly to honor King, who was or
ganizing a Vietnam protest when he was
assassinated. However, it is a stretch of
liberal fantasy to assume that MLK
would appreciate such a dubious dis
tinction. Would he join in defending the
murderous Saddam Hussein? Would he
approve of signs labeling Colin Powell a
“House Negro — Fakes Left, Moves
Right,” or claiming Gondoleezza Rice
“Will Kill Africans for Oil?”
Doubtful. These were not crowds Dr.
King would condone or join. Yes —
unions, families, teachers, church lead
ers and little old ladies were all there.
But don’t pretend that these rallies
represent a diverse cross-section of
Americana. More accurately a perverse
cross-section of race-baiters and anti
Semites who have found the media a
willing participant in the manipulative
charade of “dissent is patriotic.”
The Emerald, The Register-Guard,
The Oregonian, and The New York Times
all gushed at the organizing abilities of In
temational ANSWER. But not one of
them ever mentions the organization’s
past triumphs, including their defenses of
Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong II and Slo
bodan Milosevic.
After all, as one truly daring sign put it,
“The difference between Bush and Hus
sein is that Hussein won the election.”
When Iraq is liberated, its people
freed, and the images of the starving and
tortured masses revealed, history will re
member these protesters as idle witness
es to a crime.
Happy birthday, Dr. King!
Pete R. Hunt
editor in chief
Oregon Commentator , A