4a Opinion Friday, October 6, 2000 Perspective For comments, contact Ben Embry or Emily Hughey at 864-4924 or e-mail opinion@kansan.com Risky tax cuts could hurt U.S. economy The good news is that at least one presidential candidate has outlined a plan that will pay off the national debt in only 12 years. That's great, because eliminating the debt helps our economy and keeps interest rates low. Poor college students like low interest rates because they could save thousands of dollars on loans, whether it be for tuition, cars or houses. The bad news is that candidate — George W. Bush — could get elected and screw things up. Bush wants sweeping tax cuts to give the projected budget surplus "back to the people so they can decide what to do with it." Who could possibly not like that? First, most Americans agree that paying off the national debt should be a higher priority than tax cuts. Because of the great economy, most Americans are doing fine. Sure, they don't like paying taxes, but they know that paying off the debt is important. Americans also are more concerned whether Social Security and Medicare will still be around when they retire. Second, big tax cuts would negatively affect our economy. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress last July against going on either a spending or tax-cutting spree. Why? When the economy is bad, we often increase government spending or cut taxes to increase consumer spending; people with more money will buy more things. The result: the economy grows. But right now, our economy is already growing and almost too fast. If we increase consumer spending now, that could cause the prices on everything to increase (inflation). David Grummon columnist opinion@kansan.com What happens if we cut taxes and flood the economy with more money? People will spend it, creating more "demand" and inflation will skyrocket. That will mess up the good economy, and that's the last thing we want. Third, cutting taxes now would go further to complete the not-so-hidden agenda Republicans in Congress have pursued since Newt Gingrich ran the House of Representatives. While trying to balance the budget, many programs designed to help the poor, elderly, disabled and lower middle classes were cut to the bone or eliminated, such as job retraining, child nutrition, and investments in education and infrastructure. Cuts had to be made to balance the budget, but most of the money for these important programs never was restored once the budget was balanced and we started running surpluses. Republicans in Congress never intended to restore their funding. Now that they've slashed and burned such programs, Republicans want to cut taxes to keep that money in their pockets. I understand that individual control of your own money is a central theme of Republican philosophy. And I'm not opposed to the idea of cutting taxes itself. What bothers me now is the size, the timing and where the tax cuts are proposed. If it is true that proposed elimination of the so-called marriage penalty and the death tax (which only affects the largest estates) actually results in subsidizing only the wealthiest of Americans, then it's hard to believe such cuts are necessary or beneficial. A more sensible approach has been proposed by Kansas Congressman Dennis Moore. He supports using half of the budget surplus to pay off the debt, which will lower long-term interests rates for home buyers, saving them thousands during the long run. This helps the middle class, helps the economy and doesn't rip off the poor simply to help the rich. When former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole tried to save his slipping presidential campaign in 1996 by offering a huge tax cut for all Americans, we saw it for what it was: A desperate attempt to get votes. Four years later, I'm hoping Americans again can look past that temptation. Big tax cuts now, as Bush has proposed, wouldn't help those who need help and would screw up our economy. To all the rest of us, that's really bad news. Grummon is a Beloft second-year law student. Seth Jones / KANSAN Heard on the Hill What do you think KU needs to do to win the game against K-State? "It would take divine intervention." Amanda Erickson Shawnee junior "Find some people who care about sports." Brian Lefler Leavenworth junior "I have no clue. It's just not going to happen." Carrisa Hurt Louisburg senior "A miracle." Yancy Dominick Lawrence graduate student Perspective Dissection imperative to learning anatomy Sometimes personal motivation confuses me. It happens, and I normally just let it slide. However, on occasion an issue crops up that exasperates me so much that I am forced to come out of my lab to comment on it. After careful contemplation of last Thursday's headline article, I have come up with two options for Janice Manuel: Take the damn test or find a new major. Okay everybody, take a few deep breaths. Don't get mad now, I've only begun. I'll explain myself, I swear. Dissection is not for everyone. In my opinion, if you are not a biology major or are not in the pre-medical program, your position on dissection is your own business. It doesn't adversely affect anyone; therefore, I can respect your choice not to dissect. However, if you are a biology major, especially if you are pre-medicine, dissection shouldn't Eric Rush guest columnist opinion@kanan.com My argument is about the quality of education for KU biology students, particularly those who are preparing for medical school. There is no possibility to learn about mammalian physiology without at least some dissection. The student in question and her advocates show their short-sightedness through several assertions that exhibit a distinct lack of familiarity with rigorous pre-medical preparation. I believe that dissection is an integral part of this preparation, and efforts to substitute it will be either unviable or educationally worthless. even be an issue; it should be an understood part of the curriculum. You shouldn't ask not to dissect if you decide to major in biology. 1) Computer models are bad. There are several animated, semi-interactive dissections on the Internet, as well as one frog dissection walk-through that is photographed. Honesty, I feel that these are a total waste of time. Let me ask everyone a question: How much pressure does it take to cut through skin, muscle or bone? How do you hold a scalpel to make your incision as straight and controlled as possible? What does a computerized dissection simulation tell you about these things? Nothing. Are they important? Absolutely, if you want to be a physician. You want good surgeons, right? Me too. I want them to have had lots of practice with a knife. You should, too. Many of the Pre-Allied Health students are required to take either a human dissection or dissection observation lab. In fact, the Division of Biological Sciences restricts these labs to those majors because there just aren't that many cadavers to work with. This is one reason why the rest of us use animals to dissect instead. Anyone who claims that animals offer no benefit or perspective on human anatomy has obviously never dissected one. The fetal pigs that are dissected in BIOL 152 show a striking similarity to human physiology, which is (I'm assuming) why they were selected in the first place. Just one of the benefits of common descent. 2) Human cadavers are hard to come by, especially for undergraduates. So that's it, Janice. I'm not trying to change anyone's belief system — that would violate my own. However, I am asking you to consider the ramifications of your current actions. I also am asking you to consider changing to a discipline where the course work does not conflict so directly with your beliefs. Even if you win this round, I can guarantee that this will not be the last. I also can guarantee that medical schools will not be nearly as accommodating as your professors have been. Rush is a Topeka senior in biochemistry and genetics. Editorial Alternate oil source necessary Dipping into country's oil reserves reveals a poor energy policy Some people might find it puzzling that Clinton released oil from the strategic reserve so close to the election, but the decision is not purely political. Despite the necessity of the release, we need a better energy policy that emphasizes renewable and energy efficiency. Clinton has made the election of Al Gore a major part of his presidential legacy. It's no wonder the oil release looks suspicious a month before the election. A series of factors beyond control made the release necessary. OPEC is producing less oil, and meteorologists predict that this will be the coldest winter in ten years. We need the oil in the market to keep homes heated. Will 30 billion barrels of oil bring gas prices down so low that the average American doesn't hold it against Gore at the polls? Probably not. The entire country consumes 18 billion barrels of oil per day. Don't forget that Gore loses from the release as well. Whether gas prices go up or down in November, the release can be perceived as collusion, and that makes Gore look bad. The release gives something Bush and Cheney can use as political fodder for their campaign. If we are going to criticize Al "Earth In the Balance" Gore, it should be for his sloppy work with alternative energy. Dipping into the country's strategic petroleum reserve every time OPEC cuts production reveals a poor energy policy. What we need now is emphasis on renewable energy sources, hybrid cars and regulations on energy efficiency. It's not fair to criticize only Gore on this issue because Bush isn't advocating a viable energy policy. Whittling away the reserve a billion barrels at a time will have to work until a candidate voices a strong opposition to oil dependence. Ben Tatar for the editorial board Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. The Kansan reserves the right to edit submissions, and not all of them will be published. Slanderous statements will not be printed. To read more, go to www.kansan.com. Abortion opponents only see women as baby factories. - Liberal media bias isn't only limited to the Kansan. It's all over the U.S. How else would you explain ABC having George Stephanopolis comment on the presidential debates? - - To all the conservatives: Merely attacking the Kansan for being too liberal will not change the paper. How like a conservative to gripe yet offer no solutions. When will pro-George W. Bush articles start appearing in the Kansan? 图 Print some real news for once, Kansan! This is Kansas. Of course there will be more Caucasians enrolled. The University should stop worrying about minority enrollment. - Is the Lawrence Housing Commission trying to kick students out of Lawrence? Without students, this town wouldn't exist. - This housing ordinance will drive students out of town because of the skyrocketing demand for apartments. I didn't know that at-risk children were those children who can't learn, Thank you, Gov. Bush. - - An unwanted pregnancy is preventable. - Monkeys, penguins and ducks are the three funniest animals that exist. I'm starting a petition to get the daughters of Bush and Gore to debate because they're hot. 图 What's with KU Info and their stupid Jaytalk line? Sounds like liberals are trying to discriminate against conservatives. Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions. How to submit letters and guest columns All letters and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ben Embry or Emily Hughey at 864-2942. Guest columns: Should be double- spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run. readerrep@kansas.com or 864-4910 opinion@kansas.com or 864-4924 sports@kansas.com or 864-4930 writer@kansas.com or 864-4910 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Editor ... Nathan Willis Managing editors ... Chris Borniger, ... Kristi Ellott Readers' rep ... Erinn Barcomb Opinion ... Ben Embry, ... Emily Hughey Sports ... Melinda Weaver Associate sports ... Jason Walker Campus ... Jessie Meyer, ... Mindle Miller If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924. editor@kansan.com or 864-4854 Features ... Clay McCuistion Jayplay ... BriAnne Hess Online ... Chris Hopkina Photo ... Nick Krug Design, graphics ... Amy Train Wire ... Lori O'Toole Special sections ... Clare McLellan General manager and news adviser.. Tom Eblen News editors The University Daily Kansan features@kansas.com or or 864-0294 jayplay@kansas.com or or 864-0180 uebellator@kansas.com or or 864-0180 664-0381 664-0382 664-0410 664-0410 teblen@kansas.com or or 864-7667 Business ... Brad Bolyard Retail sales ... Becky LaBranch Marketing ... Trent Guyer Campus ... Monica Hahn Regional ... Brooke Johnson National ... Katy Hyman Online sales ... Lindsey Gross Online creative ... Patrick Rune Advertising managers managers Creative ... Erin Endres 864-4358 Production ... Jenny Weaver 864-4475 Classifieds ... Sarah Lando classfolds@kansan.com or 864-4358 Zone ... Cecily Curran 864-4358 Zone ... Anika Entwistle 864-4358 Zone ... Chris Davenport 864-4358 Zone ... Jenny Moore 864-4358 Sales and marketing Matt Fisher mfisher@kansan.com