Taxes won't cure cancer
Cancer is a terrible disease. I can say this firsthand because I have family members who have struggled against it. I know what cancer can do to families and how it affects the individual who is fighting the illness. Indeed, cancer research is a noble cause, but in response to Christopher Crawford's article ("LIVESTRONG Challenge Promotes Proposition 15," Oct. 15), cancer research funded by taxpayer dollars is not the best way to bankroll the search for a cure.
The House Research Organization estimated that the interest cost of the proposition could exceed $1.6 billion. That means that financing Proposition 15 could cost more than half as much as money dedicated to cancer research. The economic future of college students would be threatened by this much debt. Passage of the proposition threatens the future earning potential of young people and diminishes our ability to donate to worthy causes, like cancer research, in the future.
Another problem with the legislation is that it provides no way to control the amount of taxpayer money wasted on administrative overhead. Fifteen percent of the money will automatically go toward things other than cancer research. Private citizens should be able to decide which research institutions deserve their hard-earned money, not the state government.
Furthermore, some argue that Proposition 15 would make Texas a center for medical research and boost the economy. But it is crucial to ask yourself: At what cost? The debt that Texas will incur because of this legislation actually will strain our state's economy and ultimately lead to tax increases. These tax increases could put so much pressure on the economy that private citizens could loose their ability to donate altogether.
This amendment to the Texas Constitution would grant power to the state that it is ill-equipped to handle. The writers of our constitution knew that charitable contributions are best left to the private sector. Keep your green; vote "no" on Proposition 15.
Liz Young
Chairman
Young Conservatives of Texas Government junior
Homeless in a bubble
In response to "Gregory plaza shacks up," Oct. 17: While I applaud students involved with Habitat for Humanity for their dedication to helping those with substandard living conditions, Shack-a-thon is a poor representation of being homeless. I was offended by what passed as experiencing the conditions of homelessness: decorated constructions made of wood, designer clothing, purses and loads of warm clothing, blankets and even computers.
If you haven't yet, take a walk downtown any time during the day. Those who are homeless don't vibrantly proclaim their homelessness like these students did. They certainly don't live in wood shacks or have warm clothing, cell phones or computers at their disposal. house. Business and Spanish junior Riley Hester, co-chair of the event was quoted saying, "During the 54 hours, we're supposed to be living here, but it's kind of hard to live when you can't sleep."
Giving up sleep for 54 hours in the safe haven of a university campus surrounded by security measures (phones, well-lit streets and pathways and patrolling officers) is not comparable to living in a dumpster, in a back alley or on a park bench. There are no means of protection, but fear of prosecution or harassment.
I think what Habitat students are trying to do is admirable, but to get a real sense of homelessness (and contextualize your work with Habitat), spend time in Austin. Look beyond your bubble, a comfort afforded to you, and take in what exists here. I guarantee that 54 hours without sleep or depending on the light from computers will still feel luxurious.
Kelly Jensen
School of Information
graduate student
Be the first to comment on this article!