Unfair accusation

I am writing in response to Patrick Cummings' commentary Wednesday, "Racist Airline Security." I traveled through several airports during the holidays and did not perceive any racist profiling. In fact, I was pulled aside for a random check, as were numerous other Caucasians. I am not saying that racist profiling does not occur. I certainly understand and echo Mr. Cummings' disgust for and call to action against such profiling.

However, it is not fair to point the finger at the entire airline security system based on one's experience at several airports during one's travel. In so doing, it could almost be concluded that one is laying blame on the whole group for the actions of several people, something against which Mr. Cummings is arguing. Mr. Cummings also stated, "As an American, how can we not question and stand up against this act ... ?" Ignoring the poor grammar, it should be said that racial profiling must not be tolerated by any nationality or group, not just Americans.

Rick Brandt
geography graduate student

Airport searches prove to be random

I am not sure what airline Patrick Cummings was flying when he went home for Christmas break, but I have made two long round-trip flights in the past month. I had to board eight different airplanes, and of those eight times, I was told to step out of line to be searched five times. I am Caucasian, so I know for a fact that at least with the airline I was traveling, Caucasians are indeed searched. Nobody I know would call me suspicious looking-so the only reason I can think that I was searched so often was that luck was against me. I watched time and time again as airline personnel searched every fourth or fifth passenger. My family and friends who have not traveled by airplane since the attacks asked me when I returned home if the searches appeared to be random or not, and from what I have seen I told them that I fully believed they were random. Of course I cannot speak for all airports and airlines, but only from the experiences I have encountered.

Michael Shaffer
BioChem & MCB senior

The Krutch Cactus Garden is NOT an Eyesore

Mary Jones of Hargreaves Associates, the firm responsible for the design of the new Alumni Plaza, is mistaken when she refers to the Krutch Cactus Garden as an eyesore. The wonderful old saguaro cacti, and ancient, towering boojum trees are a last reminder of the Sonoran Desert that the UA grew from - right in the heart of our campus. While Ms. Jones and her San Francisco-based firm may prefer to think of them as an "eyesore" as they seek to sell their vision of "leaping fountains," "flowing streams" and "cooling pools" in an Alumni Plaza to the Alumni Association. They should remember that many here in Southern Arizona (and I would hope many UA alumni and students) are proud of their desert environment and will think twice about her wasteful use of water - our most precious resource. The Krutch Garden is the last remnant of what was once an expansive garden of rare and beautiful desert plants that stretched from Old Main to Cherry Street. It is named for one of the early 20th Century's premier naturalists (a Tucson high alumnus who later donated his library to the UA). Without him, we would not have the likes of Edward Abbey and many, many others. His memory should be honored, where it is.

The argument that it is best to move the gardens to a new location (so President Likins can have a new stage in front of the Administration building) is a poor substitute - no boojums as large as the ones in the Krutch Gardens have ever been successfully moved, and the difficulty of moving large saguaros is well documented. Indeed, left in place the boojum trees (which are already older than the UA) may live well past 2502 - yes, another 500 years! But if they are moved, and their shallow root system, which is likely entwined with the other trees and cacti in the garden, is shredded, they will almost surely die. We must prohibit the "Californication" of our campus. Don't let these people destroy our UA Heritage with their Alumni Plaza.

Joe Leisz
UA alumnus

Dale column discouraging

It is disturbing to read that Mr. Dale has fallen into the same type of partisan bickering that has paralyzed our political system and indeed is the source of your frustrations with Sen. Daschle"s actions. I have found it as difficult as most Americans to watch our congressional leaders argue over the details of an economic stimulus package. Clearly, our government is too strongly influenced by corporate and special interest groups to find real compromise during even these trying times. Your condemnation of Sen. Daschle"s actions only serve to fuel the superficial divide between Republicans and Democrats and continue to drive our nation toward stagnation on important political issues. Coming from someone in their junior year at a major university, this is very discouraging.

Aaron Thompson
Tucsonan

Daschle is protecting Americans

Shane Dale"s analysis of the battle over an economic stimulus package "America Won't Grant Daschle His Wish," is nothing short of ridiculous. Proof comes in the form of a report released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this month. The CBO study found that the central components of the Republican-backed stimulus bill would do little to improve the economy.

One of the most controversial items in this plan is the repeal and refund of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was passed to guarantee that profitable corporations could not avoid paying federal taxes by making use of "creative accounting" and tax shelters. Repealing and refunding the AMT would cost taxpayers $25 billion over 10 years, with most of that money going to corporate giants like IBM, GM, and GE. The CBO analysis, not surprisingly, found that this is a bad idea: "Eliminating the corporate AMT · does little by itself to change the near-term incentive for businesses to invest. Its bang for the buck is small because it primarily reduces taxes on the return from capital already in place rather than provides an incentive for new investment." Mr. Dale made no mention of the AMT issue in his column.

Another Republican proposal is a cut in the capital gains tax. This cut would cost $10 billion over 10 years, with most of the benefits going to the wealthiest few percent of the population. The CBO report states that, "In general · capital gains tax cuts would provide little fiscal stimulus. Gains tend to be realized primarily by higher-income households, which are likely to spend a smaller fraction of any additional income than lower-income households might. Moreover, cutting capital gains tax rates raises the after-tax return from savings -- the main reason that some policymakers have advocated it as a means of increasing saving. There is little consensus on the extent to which capital gains taxes affect saving or consumption, but whatever saving a cut in rates might generate would reduce its effectiveness as short-term stimulus." No mention of the capital gains tax cut was made in Mr. Dale's column, either.

The CBO report concluded that the proposals most likely to actually stimulate the economy are payroll tax and sales tax holidays - proposals not included in the Republican version of the legislation. Additionally, there is increasing concern that an economic stimulus package might not even be necessary at all. When questioned about the urgency of passing stimulus legislation, President Bush himself stated, "Well, we'll just have to see. And we'll have time when (Congress) come(s) back to take a look-see at the state of the economy. We're continuing to get mixed signals."

So, is Sen. Daschle really trying to block economic stimulus to improve the Democrats' chances in the 2002 congressional elections, as Mr. Dale claims? To me, it looks like he's protecting America from a poorly written and unnecessary piece of legislation.

In other words, he's doing his job.

Jason Hamm
physics graduate student