To the editor:
I am finding it increasingly difficult to enjoy reading The Daily Cougar. Jesse Handy's "Lizard King" piece (Jan. 30) has been the turning point.
Some of your opinion people frighten me with a brand of journalism I am hard-pressed to respect. First of all, what sort of phrase is "all of those of you out there who?" A bit awkward for a senior. Was it edited?
Next, is the name-calling now an appropriate substitute for reasoned ideas? Some example's from Handy: jerks, heartless all-you-can-eat-buffet-patronizing mother..., idiots, dorks, other names are merely implied. The realm of ideas should not be taken so lightly. I can understand a desire to entertain, but lately the cost has been excessive.
Handy does not have the slightest clue on effectively expressing an opinion. That is a shame, because I often respect his opinions underneath all the balderdash. Certainly it's more respect than I can muster for Russell Contreras. I will cover the innate fallacy of race identity politics another day.
In the future, I will simply bring other reading material with me to the Satellite. Then I can be certain my indigestion is only from the pizza.
Patrick Daly, junior, architecture
Fair and flat
To the editor:
It was interesting to read an opinion piece in The Daily Cougar Monday that considered the idea of taxing everyone at the same rate "crazy" or "selfish." To me, if taxation must exist, then the fairest form of it involves everyone paying the same rate.
Presently, a couple of possibilities at the federal level take the form of an income tax or a consumption tax. Some months ago, I used the "Armey-Shelby Flat Tax Form" to calculate my possible tax if it were adopted. With the personal allowances (single, no children), my taxes would be reduced to about 33 percent of the amount owed under the current tax system. Being a poor graduate student, not having this additional amount confiscated by the government would be fantastic.
Anyway, after performing
this exercise, I began to believe there are other Americans who would benefit under this proposed system, too. Moreover, if the rich get to keep more of their income, so what? Generally, they earned it. Also, since tax cuts here would tend to increase revenues, it is spending that is the problem.
In any case, the real money is not with the rich, but in the pension funds of the middle class. And don't think this administration doesn't know it.
Nathan Champagne, graduate student, electrical engineering
To the editor:
Once again, Russell Contreras succeeded in misrepresenting the truth in his Jan. 29 column. His claim that the flat tax proposed by U.S. Rep. Dick Armey would hurt the poor is just plain ridiculous.
In theory, a flat tax is considered regressive, but this is not what Armey is proposing. He proposes a large personal exemption so the "poor" would have no tax, not more tax. Under his proposal, a family of four would get an exemption of $33,000. This is not classified as poor by the government, or by most Americans.
Currently, this family of four gets less than $10,000 in personal
exemptions. After that, they pay more than the 17 percent proposed by Armey.
His proposal may be flawed in other ways, but not in the way
Contreras states. Once again, it was an excuse for Contreras to call names and point fingers without the facts to back it up. He managed to liken the supporters of this tax proposal to the Branch Davidians and imply they are sleeping together. No wonder he gets the words wrong to songs. He can't even read far enough into Armey's proposal to understand it, if he read any of it at all, which I doubt.
Jonas Goering, Optometry II