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 <letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Letters must be signed and indude a phone number for verification
