LETTERS: Unwanted UMC representation

To the Editor: Latino students on this campus have specifically chosen to voice their own concerns rather than use the UMC as a vehicle for doing so. Yet Koledoye "stressed, however, that the UMC will continue to address all minority concerns, including Latino issues, because 'the goal of the UMC is to represent all minorities regardless of whether they are members.' " The UMC has no legitimate right to speak or act on behalf of any group that has not consented to be so represented, and Latino students on this campus have withdrawn that consent. Not only is it personally offensive to me that Koledoye would paternalistically presume to represent the interests of my community, it is patently ridiculous given the fact that Latinos on this campus have actively declined that representation and are perfectly capable of representing ourselves. I do not believe that Koledoye's unfortunate comment is reflective of next year's UMC, but I felt her statement could not go unaddressed. I don't, unlike Koledoye, presume to speak for anyone else's community, but I do take note of the fact that Native Americans were not mentioned as a group to sit on the political advisory board of the UMC. Given that fact, as well as the Latino withdrawal and Koledoye's subsequent statement, "United Minorities Council" is a misnomer. The organization ought to be renamed to reflect the more limited scope of its actual constituency and advocacy. Amy Maldonado Law '98 The power of money To the Editor: I read without surprise the comments made by City Council President John Street regarding the proposed vending bill, "City shows support for vending bill," DP, 4/15/98). Of course, everyone knows that the passage of the bill is a foregone conclusion and that it doesn't matter how the students, staff and faculty of Penn feel about it, not to mention the local residents of West Philadelphia. What impressed me, however, was Street's open admission that the needs of Penn far outweigh the needs of the people who are at Penn. It is as I have always suspected: Government of, by and for the people with money and power. Tracylea Byford Biology Department staff A taxing burden To the Editor: Roberto Mantaro Samaniego makes a feeble case for the federal income tax in his April 15 column "Collection Plate Contribution." He argues that certain government bureaucracies "benefit everybody by their mere existence," and that what makes taxes so wonderful is that they enable the government to "encourage certain socially desirable activities." The last time I checked, the purpose of government was to protect us from violence, coercion and fraud. Micromanaging our businesses, telling us how to save for retirement, dictating what social activities are are to be encouraged and forcing us to subsidize other people's businesses are not acceptable roles for the government of a free nation. If we are to have personal liberty, then why should the government penalize me for not having children, not taking out a mortgage or for using a legal product such as alcohol? Most people do not realize that the income tax was found to be unconstitutional when it was passed by Congress in 1893. Although it was finally enacted in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed, most Americans were exempt from it. And for those who weren't, most of them only paid at a 1 percent rate. A more pernicious misconception is that the income tax is somehow necessary to keep the federal government running. Personal income taxes typical comprise only 30 to 40 percent of federal government spending, yet spending levels were about 30 percent lower only eight years ago. While some politicians talk about instituting a flat tax or replacing the income tax with a sales tax, they ignore the fact that the income tax could be totally eliminated and not replaced with anything. The income tax is a tremendous burden on both our civil liberties and our economic growth. The impact on our civil liberties is perhaps the more obvious of the two. After all, just having to report the amount and sources of your income is a blatant invasion of privacy. And don't forget that the Internal Revenue Service is welcome to audit you, slap you with fines and even imprison you if you misunderstand any part of the seven-million-word tax code. But on the economic side, people often ignore the fact that the income tax drives up the price of employing workers, decreases employment levels and decreases disposable income for those who do find work. Politicians have been waging a war on poverty for decades now, but many ignore the fact that the tax burden is a major cause of poverty. Instead of trying to raise revenues to help the poor, politicians should be looking to eliminate taxes in order to remove the economic burdens that stand in the way of free enterprise. So before you rally behind political candidates who are all too eager to strip you of your economic and personal liberty, take a moment to consider the real impact of their rhetoric. The income tax has resulted in a loss of privacy, the birth of the oppressive Internal Revenue "Service," and obscene damage to our economy. David Jelinek Engineering PhD candidate '02 Penn Rocks for the future To the Editor: As a self-proclaimed wild party advocate, I am worried about the future of the Penn Rocks for the Homeless event. I am afraid that future organizers will continue using the sorority-party format (indoors, downtown, expensive drinks and unrelated to other events) based on the relative attendance and financial success of this year's event. Simply, this year's organizers took what was once among the greatest parties of the year and turned it into a typical Penn tight-black-pants fest -- and for weak reasons. The risk of rain is inherent in any outdoor event. To move an event indoors "like because it rained last year" is silly. (Check your beginning math book under "statistical independence.") Instead, why not arrange for an alternate indoor location in the event of rain? And to hold the event downtown and a week before Fling because 12 goofy LCE officers handed out tickets in 1996 is ridiculous. So long as Czar Rush is in office, that's the chance you take if you don't have ID. But, I'm willing to go one step further with a pledge: I will donate the first $200 to a fund to pay underage-drinking fines incurred by students at the event, should organizers return to the old format next year. Penn Rocks 1995 and 1996 were outdoors, on campus, the night before Fling and with unlimited Rolling Rock beer. Penn Rocks 1998 was not. Penn Rocks 1995 and 1996 were great, memorable evenings in my college career. Penn Rocks 1998 was not. Brendan McGeever College/Wharton '98 Clarifying Yugoslavia To the Editor: The article about my presentation on former and present Yugoslavia ("Prof examines Yugoslavia's problems, criticizes U.S.," DP, 4/9/98) covered well several issues I discussed, but it had a major error that requires correction. I criticized the U.S. policy for taking a "black-and-white" approach of total condemnation of the Serbs, while the whole conflict was started by ex-communists and nationalist extremists in all five republics. Croatians and Bosnian Muslims performed some of the bitterest slaughters between themselves, but the sanctions were imposed on the Serbs only. I pointed out the problem of propaganda distortions. Serbian news explained the ugly ethnic cleansing performed by the Serbs as "voluntary exodus of Croats and Muslims." However, when the U.S. assisted Croatia to perform ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Serbs from Krajina (the most massive one in the entire war), both Croatia and the U.S. State Department gave the same sadistic explanation: "The Serbs left voluntarily." I condemned aggression and propaganda on all sides and regretted that the U.S. joined the Croat-Muslim side in this process instead of staying neutral and punishing all extremists. Today, hundreds of thousands of refugees suffer in all parts of the former Yugoslavia. But the refugees in the present Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), who are mostly Serbs, but also some Muslims and Croats, get virtually no international assistance because of sanctions against Yugoslavia. Refugees in all parts are innocent victims and they all deserve equal assistance. Vukan Vuchic Transportation Professor Thanks for help to victim To the Editor: This is an open thank you note to whoever helped my friend, Greg Krykewycz, after he was struck in a hit-and-run accident on Walnut Street yesterday.EGreg is one of my closest friends here at Penn and I am forever in the debt of the people who called the ambulance and came to his aid.EThank you.EAnd I am sure Greg's family and other friends thank you as well.EGet well soon, Greg. Billy Henehan College '99