Opinion page 7 • Friday, March 5, 2004 The Battalion 'd/1ba, ments. * 've-in lleny 'mo 979J r 'aTreeHj L iec, $4ov ihotographs depicting the United ids Auj ng progress and achievements. One can mage in particular grabbed my atten- . The photograph displayed a young :k woman breaking segregation ulesby sitting at the counter in a small iouthern diner. In response to her quiet in 3Mit bills 979 m/1ba. 4-1082. irotest, several whites have surrounded her and nvibaifl re pouring sugar on her head, doing their best S250.m ‘ similar situation: stand up, suck it up and take lefirst seat that becomes available. Disabled? Old? III? I will happily move for imebody who suffers physical difficulties due or age, but gender alone does not fit is category and nor should it qualify some- idy for extra respect. want more respect from me than I would reto another man? Earn it or live with it, it is equality. Daren Swanick Class of 2007 inS^pader didn’t cause Gore lose 2000 election response to Collins Ezeanyim’s March 3 In the Marine Corps, we would refer to this as io impact, no idea.” I am of course referring to (efaetthat Mr. Ezeanyim has missed the mark itli his latest attack of our commander in chief, is story was cloaked in some misguided rhet- ic about Ralph Nader's influence on the ctions in 2000 and the upcoming one in wember. However, he just couldn't resist rowing a few shots at Bush. Here's the bottom line: Ralph Nader did not use Al Gore to lose the election in 2000. Al ire caused Al Gore to lose the election in 2000. id Al Gore won his own home state of iooessee (where he served as senator), he )uld have won the race. However, the good le of Tennessee, the constituency who prob- knew him best, agreed with the majority of dericans in that they believed George W. Bush be president. Ido have to give Mr. Ezeanyim credit however, ks+LI^ ectil for being consistent with the typical liberal attacks and blame games we are seeing every day. Especially from the likes of John Kerry, who has spent $6.9 million on TV ads with 74 percent of them directly attacking the president. It is understandable that Kerry doesn't want to talk about himself and his^ecord. With a vot ing record like his, I wouldn't either. From a service member's point of view, how in the world are we supposed to react to facts such as him saying "I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations" and him voting against 27 major weapons systems we currently use? With or without Ralph Nader, come November, the choice for me is crystal clear. Andy Thaxton Class of 2006 Outsourcing is what’s best for consumers In response to Jon Steed’s March 4 column: Jobs do not belong to the employees who fill them. The jobs belong to the employer. Therefore, they cannot be "lost," as Mr. Steed says, because the employer knows right where they go: to people who can do the same work for less money. Jobs are just another item to be traded in a free market. With government interference, the market forces are upset by artificial controls, and costs invariably go up. As long as out sourcing continues, the winner will continue to be the consumer. The employees who "lost" their jobs had better develop some marketable skills. Take note, Mr. Steed, this whole out sourcing buzz is just another factor in econom ics. Those who can do the best job for the least amount of money get rewarded, just as with any other product we buy in stores. Paul Sims Class of 2006 Clarification Two sentences were combined in a Forum column in Thursday’s Battalion by Graduate Student Council President Josh Peschel. The column should read as follows: “Traditional social conservatism adamantly opposes gov ernment intervention. On the topic of same- sex marriage a common sentiment is for the government to restrict same-sex marriage." Bush shouldn’t support costly highway bill A DAVID SHOEMAKER government committed to a war far from home, while simulta neously allocat ing funds to new and expen sive domestic programs, will inevitably run an increasing deficit. This is what President George W. Bush is leading the country toward in the run up to. the November elections if things keep going they way they have been. With the massive expendi tures necessary to sustain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush cannot let Congress pass so many new programs, especially pork projects such as those inherent in the new, massive highway bill before Congress. The highway bill slowly mak ing its way through Congress is a perfect target for Bush to show that he cares about stopping out- of-control spending. According to The Washington Post, the bill passed the Senate with a total cost of $318 billion, and “it differs from a costlier bill pending in the House.” The spending in the bill cannot be covered solely by the highway trust fund, according to the article, meaning that the dif ference must be made from funds that could go toward other pur poses. According to the article, the House bill will likely total $370 billion. The president requested a bill that would have cost $256 bil lion, a number more in line with the revenues from the federal gas tax, which pays for the highway fund. This would not force an increase in the gas tax, as noted by Sen. Don Young, R-Alaska. Revenue would have to be divert ed from other projects that would be necessary in ofder to pay for the huge bill. The highway bill will allow congressmen in an election year to present accomplishments to their constituents. A column by Bob Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times rattled off a few such cases: Sen. Lisa Murkowski got $30 million in the bill to build roads in remote parts of Alaska; Sen. Pat Murray got more money for ferries serv ing Puget Sound; and Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic whip in the Senate, got a provision repealing a gaming tax thrown in. Bush should not go through the motions of being opposed to the project for show. He needs to bring the government’s annual budget back in to balance, or at least as close to being balanced as possible. He also needs to resist the characteristically Democratic desire to raise taxes. The only way to do this is to keep a close eye on spending, which the government should be doing anyways. However, it looks as if the White House, with the ever-pres ent advice of Karl Rove, may be simply using the issue as a politi cal foil. In a recent column, Novak mentioned that even if Bush vetoed the bill, as he has threatened to do, it would still likely be passed on the two-thirds override. This would allow the president to look tough on spend ing restraint, but let Congress get their serving of pork. As Novak says, “that may be too clever by half for Americans.” Bush should just stick to his guns on the issue and not just for show. If Bush wants to make sure his domestic initiatives — such as prescription drug coverage — don’t end up in the same boat as Social Security, he must keep at least some semblance of fiscal responsibility by holding down spending as much as possible. Raising taxes again will not help solve the problem, either. Democrats always complain about tax cuts only benefiting the rich, but one thing that increased tax revenues will inspire is more spending. More spending at the federal level means more pork. Tax cuts themselves do not drive economic prosperity, but are aids to those who do drive it, people who invest money into the economy. An example of how lower tax rates can help spur investment was mentioned in a column by Larry Kudlow on www.nationalreview.com. According to the Labor Department, 2 million Americans have gained employ ment this year, spurred by “independent contractors and the self-employed (are) setting up limited-liability companies to keep more of what they earn through lower individual tax rates,” Kudlow writes. Bush must hold the line on spending with his own party and prevent the Democrats from pushing for a tax increase. By doing this he can hopefully reduce the deficits the country will surely run during the war on terrorism and as major domestic programs are restructured. The challenges facing a balanced yearly budget are too serious now to let the budget be flooded even further with pork. David Shoemaker is a junior management major.