Student government must take majority view into
account
Creating much cognitive dissonance for the anti-war protesters,
the Iraqi people greet our troops with kisses, flowers and songs of
joy and freedom. Even Iraqi immigrants, many residing in Michigan,
have taken to the streets chanting “God Bless America”
and “God Bless U.S. Troops,” thereby showing their
admiration for the troops and the president.
Yet here in our own country, our student government cannot even
pass a simple resolution supporting our troops ““ a resolution
irrespective of its stance on the war. Campus Events Commissioner
Ryan Wilson claims USAC cannot pass this resolution because he is
“just also in support of the lives of the Iraqi
people.”
Those who voted against the resolution, including Financial
Supports Commissioner Andrew LaFlamme (who is ironically running
for USAC president on a slate composed of many Bruin Republicans)
continue to hold the anti-war stance in the supposed interest of
the Iraqi people ““ the same people who are thanking our
country today for saving their lives. By not passing the
resolution, USAC has failed to recognize the interests of those we
are fighting for.
Rona Ram
Second-year, communication studies
War, not the United States, has won
The U.S. military accomplished its goal in Iraq. In that sense,
it can be said to have won. However, another winner slipped through
with the troops and tank brigades ““ war itself.
President Bush had his goals for Iraq. Whether liberation of
people or control of oil, Bush’s goals have been accomplished
by this war. Tools that work remain in use. The next time a
dictator or a government trying to control a country’s
resources threatens the “national interests” of the
United States, war will come sooner than it did this time. It will
happen time and time again.
How many American lives will be lost in this madness? How many
human lives?
Flags will be flying high tomorrow. But they really should be at
half mast.
We lost.
Jane Shevtsov
Second-year
Ecology, behavior and evolution
Finally, an editorial I agree with
As a result of my extremely moderate and non-ideological
political views, it is hard for me to find a Daily Bruin editorial
that I can agree with. “USAC owes its support to U.S.
troops” (April 11) is, hands down, the best editorial I have
read in all of my years on this campus. I found my head nodding
(instead of my brow furrowing) to the tune of each statement.
It is true that national issues are not exactly under the
jurisdiction of a university’s student government, but
exceptions should be made in some cases. A statement that does not
grossly overstep the bounds of said jurisdiction should be allowed,
especially in the case of worldwide issues that have an overarching
impact (direct and indirect) on so many members of the UCLA
community.
No matter what ideological camp a person chooses to belong to,
one thing can be mutually agreed upon: we should support the
courageous men and women who, out of necessity or duty, put their
lives in danger in an unforgiving and unflattering war.
Nichole J. Benavente
Fifth-year, sociology
USAC should support U.S. troops
After reading the article, “USAC rejects resolution to
support troops,” (News, April 10) and then the response on
Friday by the editorial board, I felt that another response was
direly needed.
First and foremost, it disgusts and angers me that the student
government who is supposed to represent me refuses to pass a
resolution to support our troops in Iraq. There is no excuse for
this. The reason given by the council, the resolution’s
supposed pro-war slant, is complete BS as well.
The mission to rid Iraq of Hussein has long been an objective of
the United States, so for USAC to say it rejected it because of
indication of supporting the soldiers’ mission just says to
me USAC is pro-Hussein.
Secondly, I would like to thank both Adam Pearlman and Adam
Harmetz for being willing to take a stand, actually listen to their
student body, and vote in favor of the resolution. It is because of
individuals like these two that I support S.U.R.E., and just sigh
at Student Empowerment!
James Rock
Third-year, business economics
Wartime tax cuts justified
Perhaps columnist Doug Ludlow should venture out of the
political science department and take some classes in history and
economics before writing about fiscal policy issues. John F.
Kennedy did not utter the famous line, “Ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”
in support of high taxes.
In fact, Kennedy understood that tax reductions lead to higher
growth in the economy and higher tax revenues. The Kennedy tax cuts
were much larger than the current proposed tax cuts and were
implemented in a time of increasing military spending at the
beginning of the Vietnam war. In fact, the tax cuts did lead to
stronger economic growth and as a result, higher tax revenues.
Perhaps Ludlow is just parroting the current talking points of the
Democratic Party in his assault on tax cuts and furthering the
class warfare rhetoric.
While it is true that income earners in the $20,000 to $30,000
range would receive significantly smaller tax breaks by dollar
amount than those in higher tax brackets, it is because the lower
tax brackets pay a lower percentage to begin with. The top 50
percent of wage earners in this country pay 96 percent of all
income taxes, with the top 10 percent paying 67 percent of all
income taxes. The top 10 percent does not represent
million-dollar-a-year incomes as in his example; rather it starts
at only $92,000, or the amount that a two-income working family in
Southern California can expect to earn. Tax cuts are designed to
lessen the burden for the people who pay taxes.
Charles A. Moore
1986 alumnus, economics