New SGA president should not lose ground in Annapolis, must continue lobbying

We are in danger of losing every bit of progress the Student Government Association’s past two presidents have made and could revert to a president more concerned with petty issues on the campus rather than the bigger picture.

Say what you will about the ineffectiveness of Eric Swalwell’s Bahama Bob stunt, Tim Daly’s Bob and Me and Aaron Kraus’ hunger strike, but make no mistake that the past two SGA presidents have not simply relied on gimmicks to make noise; they have also fought Annapolis for every student in a constructive manner during their terms.

After reading Tuesday’s article, “Race veers from Annapolis,” I am disappointed so few candidates recognize the potential of the presidency, and worse, that so few are willing to make an effort to realize that potential. Ignorant statements such as “Everyone should be lobbying in Annapolis” and “For whatever reason, our last two presidents have focused on issues in Annapolis instead of ones right here” are absurd. If everyone should lobby in Annapolis, doesn’t it make sense the SGA president should lead the way? And what exactly does Spam presidential candidate Christian Mash think Kraus and Daly fought for in Annapolis if not student issues that affect the campus?

I worry we will lose all the progress the previous two administrations have made . I urge everyone not to vote for any candidate who dismisses lobbying for higher education and instead promises grand plans for small campus changes.

Andrew Gendreau

Junior

Economics

Social Security story used poor terminology, buried opposition of Bush plan

I was appalled by Tuesday’s Diamondback story “The Social Security shakedown,” which represented irresponsible journalism at best and partisan shilling at worst. Although the reporter gave lip service to a few alternative plans to restructure the system (and it needs to be restructured), the focus was on President Bush’s short-sighted plan to privatize the system. The graphics were derived from information provided by the Social Security Administration, which is not the most objective arbiter of the oncoming crisis. The “Social Security Deficit” chart indicates the trust fund will reach insolvency in 2042; in fact, other major agencies, such as the Congressional Budget Office, have determined the trust fund will remain solvent until 2052, or even later if simple fixes such as payroll tax increases are enacted (which was only mentioned after the page jump).

More telling, the story used the White House’s terminology of “personal account” to describe the Bush plan; this terminology was selected after the term “private account” polled poorly and is only used by supporters of the president’s plan. If anything, the two terms should both be used: “private/personal account.” The accounts, moreover, are only nominally “voluntary,” as the story implied; if enacted, the cuts necessary to make the transfer to private accounts will also affect workers who choose not to opt out of the system.

Real criticism of the Bush plan was stated vaguely and only at the end of the article. Where criticism of the Bush plan was discussed at length, it is of the type that suggests there is no need to worry about the problem because it is 40 years off. This makes opponents of the plan appear to be blind to the Social Security problem, as well as unconcerned with the future. This is patently false. While steps must be taken to ensure the continued existence of Social Security, the $5 trillion Bush plan is not one opponents of the plan believe to be economically sound.

I hope in the future The Diamondback, as the university’s independent student newspaper, sees fit to write articles on such topics in a more balanced tone.

Brad Houston

Graduate student

History and library science