Tax cuts benefit the ‘super rich’

Columnist David Francis skillfully avoided reality as he pontificated on the merits of President Bush’s tax cuts in his Tuesday column (“”Taxes: Less is more””). For instance, Mr. Francis gleefully points out the 18 percent drop in the federal budget deficit, as if to congratulate the administration on their return to true fiscal conservatism.

The reality is that, during the administration before George W. Bush took office, the federal budget deficit was $0. That’s right. Zero. As in, so low that it couldn’t get lower.

When Mr. Francis applauds the administration for minimally decreasing the federal deficit that it created, it is like praising someone for spraying Febreze after defecating on your head. If one pays homage to reality once again, one would find that the national debt has nearly doubled under George W. Bush’s tenure as chief executive.

The national debt is nearly $9 trillion today. That means that every single American citizen owes more than $30,000 to pay off our debt. Now, while the lower 98 percent of the American citizenry are receiving our “”tax breaks”” of around $300 apiece, we should ask ourselves whether the wonderful effects of Bush’s tax cuts offset the additional $15,000 each and every one of us owes thanks to George W. Bush. For the overwhelming majority of us, they don’t.

The only people who truly benefit from these massive tax cuts are the top 2 percent of the citizenry: the super rich. They receive millions in tax breaks, and the $15,000 to them at that point is chump change. It’s simple math, David.

The American people are being forced to fund the further enrichment of the top 2 percent through Bush’s tax cuts, and what’s worse is the fact that we’re doing it through credit. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia hold the lion’s share of American debt. George W. Bush’s tax cuts have sold Americans out to these foreign countries and given the profits to the super rich. And you know what? They’re laughing all the way to the bank.

Dustin Cox political science and sociology senior

What’s with the ‘ugg-ly’ boots?

I would like to wholeheartedly thank Allison Dumka for her editorial on campus fashion and its notorious shortcomings (“”Campus fashion fails the test””). Maybe now people will realize that leggings are not meant to be a substitute for pants.

I would also like to add another repeat offender: Ugg boots. Impractical in a climate like ours and completely hideous. I cannot understand how this Ugg-ly trend crept back for a second round.

Hey, ladies? You live in Arizona. You do not need to stomp around in furry boots reminiscent of the Abominable Snowman. And even if you did, why the hell would you insist on pairing them with mini-skirts or shorts?

Please dress like you have an iota of taste or at least intelligence. ‘Kay, thanks.

Bethany Evans political science sophomore

Memorial a reminder of failed Iraq policy

I commend the actions of the UA Young Democrats for respectfully honoring the more than 3,079 service members who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. In today’s polarized society, it is easy to cause a ruckus to try to get your point across, but UAYD was able to send a strong message while paying tribute to our fallen troops.

Having helped put up those 3,079 flags and reading names, I have a newfound respect for the work and sacrifice of our military members, but also have reignited my passion to push for change to the failed policy of the Bush administration in Iraq.

How many more of our family and friends need to die before we wake up and realize that no end is in sight to this quagmire that Bush has led us into? Americans, especially our generation, need to realize Bush’s Iraq policy is not working and to pressure Congress to implement change that is so desperately needed to bring an end to this war.

David Martinez III pre-education senior

Important to remember Iraqi losses, too

After looking at the display in Alumni Plaza on Monday, I realized that we could probably fill most of the UA Mall with Iraqi flags honoring the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war. We may never know how many have died, but estimates are upwards of over 150,000 people.

What makes an American life more precious than that of an Iraqi? As we desperately want to see the war come to an end, let us not forget to remember those who have innocently lost their lives, their friends and family, and even their country.

Corrie Panganiban interdisciplinary studies senior

Rec center expansion mixes priorities

So we will be expanding the Rec. Center at a cost of $22.5 million (“”Rec expansion utility tunnel incites feud””). This is because there is a traffic jam at the weight room from 6-7 p.m., and a new rock-climbing wall is desired.

At the same time we are cutting $10 from academic budgets. Yes, I know these funds come from different sources, but does this not suggest a slightly perverted sense of priorities?

Daniel Asia professor of music

Democratic opposition self-centered, short-sighted

In his letter to the editor, former Young Democrats President David Martinez III gave himself an ill-deserved pat on the back for “”sending a strong message”” and having a “”newfound respect”” for our military (“”Memorial a reminder of failed Iraq policy””). If Martinez truly respects our military, why doesn’t he support them rather than undermine them?

Like the peaceniks of the Vietnam era, Martinez desires to give the political victory to the enemy even as our soldiers are militarily superior. If Martinez was sincere in respecting the work and sacrifices of our service members, he would look beyond the one-sided media reports of military deaths to see the unreported positive actions of our soldiers that occur on a daily basis.

Not only are the Young Democrats politically self-centered in their message, but they are also short-sighted. Yes, around 2,500 American soldiers, including 59 Arizonans, have been killed in action, and each one of those soldiers will be missed. Yet this is all Martinez sees, entirely overlooking the possible effects of his desired policies.

Indeed, what would a defeat in Iraq mean? Might Iraq fall to the overwhelming force of brutal and immoral terrorists? Would terrorists worldwide become encouraged? Will coalition allies be more reluctant to join with us in future events?

Would we lose even more political power and prove that bin Laden and his ilk were correct when they claimed America couldn’t stomach a war? What sort of successes does Martinez believe diplomacy will bring if America’s enemies don’t believe America’s promises and threats?

Democrats can try as best as they can to shift all the blame of the war and its failures to our president, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the world, and in reality, America as a whole is responsible for its actions.

It’s time for Martinez’s party to become responsible and honest: Democrats should either support the war and the military or they should declare that we have failed and admit that America no longer has the will to back up its potential when push comes to shove.

Dan Greenberg political science freshman