QhNJON
Wednesday, February 22, 1995 Page 4
Daily •
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
JeffZeleny.Editor, 472-1766
Jeff Robb.Managing Editor
Matt Woody... Opinion Page Editor
DeDra Janssen.. Associate News Editor
Rainbow Rowell.Arts & Entertainment Editor
James Mehsling.Cartoonist
Chris Hain. Senior Reporter
Faulty logic
Reducing income tax won’t help Nebraska
Gov. Ben Nelson is at it again.
Last week he testified before the Nebraska Legislature’s Revenue
Committee in support of LB663, his proposal to reduce the state’s
income tax by 4.5 percent.
Come on, Gov. Nelson.
Sure, an income-tax cut sounds like a good idea, which is what most
ofNelson’s proposals sound like. But also characteristic of Nelson, is
that a closer look reveals that it is not necessarily a good idea.
In this session, among other things, Nebraska’s governor has
suggested a 3 percent increase in the budget for the University of
Nebraska, a get-tough crime package that would include stiffer
sentences and more money for several law-enforcement agencies.
These sort of proposals take money, Gov. Nelson.
Decreasing the state’s revenue intake is not going to help fund any
new programs, no matter how desperately they are needed.
The Legislature’s Appropriations Committee recommended apre
liminaiy budget cut for the University of Nebraska. Student leaders
from across the state already have lobbied against such cuts.
Reducing the state’s income tax is not going to help the university.
The Daily Nebraskan would very much like to see lower taxes for
the people of Nebraska, as well as a smaller, less bureaucratic and
more efficient government.
But with the newly Republican-controlled Congress working to
ward those same goals, an ever-increasing amount of American
government will fall on the states, which can better deal with many
social problems.
It may not be long before welfare and Medicaid will be managed
without any influence from the federal government. Nebraska has
been experiencing a crisis with its Medicaid program in the last few
years.
The states are going to need more revenue in the future, not less.
A tax cut certainly looks good to averageNebraskacitizens. It looks
even better to the state senators who represent average Nebraska
citizens and'often are looking at reelection or a loftier political
position.
Perhaps aspirations for a seat in the U.S. Congress are behind the
motives of the governor.
Everyone involved needs to look past the here and now and consider
what is best for Nebraska’s future.
In one breath
The Daily Nebraskan is a business, a real newspaper with real
subscribers. But our subscribers don’t stop at the newsstand in the
morning, or send a check every six months.
You—as students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln — are
Our subscribers. And your subscription rate now is 88 cents per
semester.
Nationwide, the newspaper industry is facing a crisis as newsprint
costs continue to skyrocket. The cost of paper on which the Daily
Nebraskan is printed will increase at least 62 percent.
These unprecedented costs already have forced the price of the
other two Lincoln newspapers to increase from 35 to 50 cents.
Tonight, ASUN will vote on whether to increase your subscription
price by 9 cents. So what can you get for 97 cents a semester?
Calvin and Hobbes. Crossword Puzzles. Personals. Greek Affairs.
Rainbow Rowell. E. Hughes Shanks. Jamie Karl.
Not a bad buy.
Editorial policy
Staff editorials represent the official
policy of the Spring 1995. Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editori
als do notnecessarily reflectthe views
of the university, its employees, the
students or the NU BoardofRegents.
Editorial columns represent the opin
ion of the author. The regents publish
the Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to su
pervise the daily production of the
paper. According to policy set by the
regents, responsibility for the edto
rial content of the newspaper lies
solely in the hands of its students.
Letter policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the
editor from all readers and interested others. Letters
will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space available. The Daily
N ebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material
submitted. Readers also are welcome to submit ma
terial as guest opinions. The editor decides whether
material should run as a guest opinion. Letters and
guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of die Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub
lished. Letters should included the author’s name,
year in school, major and group affiliation, if any.
Requests to withhold names will not be granted
Suhmitmaterial to the Daily Nebraskan, 34Nebraska
Union, 1400 R St, Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
\w meow.
Nebraskan
readers say:
- ~t :--- I
Send your brief letters to:
Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St.,
Lincoln, Neb. 68588. Or fax
to: (402) 472-1761. Letters
must be signed and include a
phone number for
t verification.
v.
Gun ownership
While Doug Peters’ column
“Kill a criminal, earn $5,000” (Feb.
14) contained entertaining sarcasm,
I’d still like to bring up some
serious points regarding self- and
home-protection.
Gun ownership and use varies
from state to state; for example, the
storing of one’s weapons with
one’s resident assistant vs. the
campus police just isn’t an issue in
California. What seems to remain
the same is the idea that home- or
self-protection must be ensured.
Realistically, $5,000 is not
going to encourage anyone to
“bait” a would-be burglar; this
“baiting” certainly would be
discouraged and the $5,000
unpayable. Besides, 800 members
only amounts to $8,000 (allowing
for only 1 3/5 kills). If two of these
members are trigger-happy, then
Darrell Frank is likely to be victim
No. 3.
Having been a handgun owner in
the past, I decided rather to play
the percentage game with the
adolescent premise that nothing
would ever happen to me where I
would need a gun. But who’s to
say? Criminals might.
I still have the right to purchase
a weapon and use it in the protec
tion of my life, health and my
personal property.
Polly Ann Najarian
graduate student
agricultural meteorology
UN L bureaucracy
After “four years prostrate to the
higher mind” at this institution and
seemingly never once having a
place of employment, I have just
realized that all this while I have
actually held a steady job through
out my time here at the university.
In fact, we are all employed.
And if you already have a job, then
actually you are holding two jobs.
We are employed at dealing with
all of the paperwork and signatures
I-■—^ ^-1
James Mehsling/DN
and appointments and the like that
the university requires of us to get
so many things accomplished.
So when someone asks you if
you have a job, you may respond,
“Yes, I’m currently employed,
working out of my home and on
campus 20 hours a week, trying to
cut through yards of red tape and
deal with all the unnecessary
bureaucracy it takes to stay afloat
at this school.”
The university, it seems, takes
countless measures to stifle any
opportunity of transferring credits,
either from abroad, a different
university or even a different
department. And think how many
countless hours you’ve spent trying
to go through drop and add or get
an override, being sent to a thou
sand different buildings to get one
signature.
Why is this so difficult? It’s like
each college here is a different
warring Neanderthal tribe and each
department is a warring faction
with that Neanderthal tribe.
Who are these ancient white
male regimes, and what are they
trying to prove with all of their
paperwork, except that they can
justify having 37 secretaries per
bureaucrat?
NRoll may have been a small
step to ease some of the load of
registration and drop and add, but
the university should for once cater
to its students and make it much
simpler to transfer credits.
But of course, I forgot, the
omni-important money would not
flow as freely into the system if it
were easy to transfer credits.
Kevin Grubb
senior
Russian and English
Human organisms
I would like to express my
appreciation to Jo Dilallo and
Dennis McGucken for their Feb. 15
letter “Fetus defined.” It is the first
of many I’ve seen to address a real
issue in the abortion debate.
Bravo for their statement “It is
perfectly obvious that a fetus is
both a living and a human organ
ism. ... What we are debating is
whether fetuses are persons,
morally and constitutionally, in the
sense that they are bearers of
rights, the most basic of which is
the right to life.”
I strongly support both of these
statements, the truth of which is
missed by so many actively
involved in these issues.
I must, however, disagree with
their assumption that there is a
distinction between a human
organism and a human person and
that some human organisms, like
fetuses, are not “full-blown
metaphysical persons.”
Is there such a thing as a half
blown physical person? Personhood
is a direct consequence of human
existence and not an arbitrary
specification by one human
concerning the ability, in any
sphere, of another.
Humans are capable of judging
the quality of existence of all living
things ... except one another.
MattDayis
graduate student
education