EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte Our VIEW Quite a gamble Proposed tax cut lacks financial certainty It was like spending an uncertain Christmas bonus without a dime in sav ings. It was like putting a load of clothes and liquid Tide in the washer without three or four quarters available. It was foolish. It invited trouble. And it could prove a rather slippery, unwearable mess. It was a vote for a tax cut. When the Republican-ruled House passed an $80 billion tax cut on Saturday, it based that cut on projected federal budget surpluses. The approving vote along party lines promised to give taxpayers money the gov ernment doesn't have. Republican Representatives swore they would mail a check when they knew they had no tangi ble checking account. And they made this promise despite relatively prosperous economic times and high employment rates. Perhaps they were simply exposing the president’s weakness on Capitol Hill; the president has threatened to veto the mea sure if it passes the Senate. Or perhaps they were stoking the fire beneath Senate Republicans, who earlier this year voted to cut taxes by $30 billion over five years - a cut that sounded severe until the House upped the ante. But, regardless of their reasoning, it's clear that logic was not a factor. That same good ol’ common sense politicians like to tout in campaign ads and political attacks was remarkably void here. While it s true that, given the superior nature of the economy in the last few years, we can reasonably expect a surplus of tax revenue, it’s not true that we can know the exact amount of that surplus. Just across the river in Council Bluffs, they call this gambling. And, in those lucrative casinos, they also know the odds of gambling: most folks will lose. Of course, the cut does include cuts that will aid middle-class, married couples. But it also includes cuts on rich folks’ taxes, such as the so-called “death tax,” a steep inheritance tax and the prepayment of a son or daughter’s tuition at a private college or university. It raises the amount of money senior citizens can make and still receive Social Security benefits, but it spends the same surplus the president wants to earmark for saving Social Security. House Republicans said, after the vote approving the tax cut, that they would leave intact most of a projected five-year, $520 billion federal budget surplus. The word of the day is: projected. When Senators vote on the measure, we hope they don’t bet on such weak odds. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the Unwereity of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daly Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. letter Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not Guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.unl.edu. Mook’s VIEW DN LETTERS Stupid is as... Regarding Tasha Kuxhausen’s remarks concerning the procreation of “stupid” people (satire, I guess), I’d like to point out that this “concept” is called eugenics. Among those subscribing to it at one point or another was Planned Parenthood. Eugenic thought was, correct me if I am wrong, at least in part incorporated in Nazi ideology regarding racial purity. I’m not making a case about today’s Planned Parenthood being ideologically even remotely connect ed to Nazi ideology (of course not), but the eugenic view lives on in form of calls for “testing” someone’s par enting skills, mandatory Norplant for welfare mothers; etc. Having said that, I find your remarks careless and certainly not funny. Werner Althaus Nebraska ETV Network staff The place of parenting I may be pro-life, and I didn’t agree with the editorial “Know the Risks” in Thursday’s DN, but I’ll accept the fact that others have differ ent opinions. It’s important to share these opinions because no matter what our stance is on this issue, we can all learn something. Unfortunately for anyone who read this editorial, the only result, at least for me, was the shock that this was even published. Yes, there may be applications for PREVEN that could be considered beneficial, but advocating its use on “unintelligent” people to prevent them from “producing” children only reduces humanity to the level of ani mals. And yes, the most ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves two loving adults who are financially secure enough to support their child, but this can’t always happen. The author implies that people outside of this situation don’t deserve the right to have children. And this is to happen so taxpay ers’ money can be saved? I would hope the author wouldn’t be so quick to divide society into two classes - those who are “fit” to have children and those who aren’t. After all, as the author stated, “I believe that women deserve the right to choose to become pregnant or not” - or does this only apply to financial ly stable women in a committed rela tionship? Vanessa Silke freshman political science Welcome to Shantytown Shantytown is a representation of substandard housing. The UNL Habitat for Humanity chapter has emphasized throughout the week of Shantytown that we are not trying to represent homelessness. Habitat for Humanity deals with substandard and poverty housing, and that is the prob lem we are trying to correct. Shantytowns exist across the world, including in the United States. The houses that people live in are made of any material that can be found, including tin, plywood, and, yes, cardboard. People do live in these structures. In fact, the displays on the outside our campus chapter’s Shanty gave more information about substandard hous ing. In the United States, people who live in shanties may be considered “homeless” by American standards. In other countries these may be con sidered regular homes. Either way, we know we cannot imitate and iden tify with that lifestyle. We just want people to think about it. Students sitting in the structure were staffing the Shantytown. While they may have only sat there for an hour or overnight, hopefully when they sat in their warm homes later, they thought about the possibility of not having that warm home. No, they can’t completely understand poverty housing, but the hope is that they will think about it, and may want to help others in that situation. I would encourage persons wanti ng to criticize our project to think about helping the situation instead. Part of the purpose of Shantytown is to raise money to build our campus chapter’s first house. This house will help a Lincoln family who is living in substandard housing. This is not a “giveaway” house. Habitat works with the family in partnership by offering them an interest-free loan and both groups help with the build ing. We don’t pretend to know what it’s like to be homeless or even live in substandard housing, and we certain ly aren’t “playing homeless” for an hour. At the same time, we hope we are increasing awareness of the situa tion of substandard housing. For more information about what Habitat does here at UNL, e-mail us at habi tat@unlinfo.unl.edu or for more information about Habitat’s work around the world, visit http://www. habitat, org. Chris Stone Shantytown co-coordinator Whose habitat? In regards to Mr. Sanford’s letter in Thursday’s issue (Street Sense), I would reply that he doesn’t under stand the purpose of the Habitat for Humanity project. The people who sit in the boxes between Burnett and Andrews do not volunteer to “appease their social consciences.” They volunteer to try to raise awareness and money for a wor thy cause. The volunteers have no illusions about actually experiencing what it is to be homeless. They simply want to get people to donate money. I would ask Mr. Sanford if he has donated his dollar. JakeWobig sophomore international affairs P.5. Write Back ^ to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400"R" St., Lincoln, NE 68588, orfax to(402) 472-1761, or e-mail