Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, October 12, 1981
Security for whom?
It's somewhat depressing to open a paycheck and see the amount of money taken out for Social Security. Of all the little tax boxes on a payroll check, the one marked "FICA" always contains the biggest number.
Not that we mind planning for the future, or that we begrudge help to those who have worked for many years and deserve pensions. The depressing part comes when we begin wondering if there will be anything left for us when we weat to the end of that same long road.
According to the doomsday predictions, the Social Security system will go broke within a year unless drastic measures are taken to reform it. The basic problem has been brewing for years: the amount of money going into the system is growing dangerously close to the amount going out.
Clearly, Congress has its work cut out for it in trying to solve this financial puzzle. But we must recognize that the gross inefficiency of the current system is only compounding an already bad situation, and that reform should begin right now.
Consider several recent revelations.
At the beginning of the month, government investigators announced that they had uncovered at least 8,500 cases—and possibly as many as 10,000—in which Social Security benefits were still begin paid to people listed as dead on Medicare records. Seems that until a few months ago, no one had bothered to check those records against the Social Security disability and retirement rolls.
Wonderful. The system is quickly working its way toward bankruptcy, and we're paying dead people millions of dollars in benefits.
Who's been getting all that money? Not ghosts, surely. The government suspects that the largest number of abusers are sons and daughters of deceased persons, and those relatives certainly deserve a harsh "shame, shame" from Uncle Sam. But they shouldn't bear all the blame. Who wouldn't be tempted to accept money that dropped unsolicited into his lap? And besides, even if the relatives tried to give the money back, chances are the government wouldn't take it. People have tried.
Take Darlene Barnes of Bentingham, Neb., for instance. She has been trying to return Social Security payments to the federal government for four months, ever since her daughter was married and became ineligible to receive the $180.90 monthly payments she had been getting since her father's death. But checks keep arriving in the mail.
When she sent back the third such check, Barnes included a message: "Pam is married. Please don't send any more checks."
The Social Security office in Omaha responded with a letter: "Please send us Pam's death certificate."
Marriages can turn sour, of course, but it's a bit unusual to classify them as a form of death, especially when truly deceased people are not recognized as being dead.
And a few days later, Barnes' daughter receivedvet another check in the mail.
"Now I know why we're in such a mess," Barnes said. "I just can't believe this is happening."
Neither can we, Mrs. Barnes. But don't worry too much about it. Even if your daughter really were dead, you'd probably still be getting those checks. So enjoy them. Somebody should.
Letters to the Editor
Faith in goodness of mankind essential after Sadat's death
To the Editor:
It has become evident that the world's reaction to the assassination of Anwar Sadat will play a significant role in the lives of Americans aged 18-22. If the reaction is violent, which would likely lead to American involvement, many of us among that generation may die. Therefore, viewing things in absolutes, this becomes a life-and-death situation.
Before you shrug this off as either obvious or absurd, I yae a more important message.
The conflict arises on a point of religious prejudice. Ideally, the people who live in that area, the Israelis and Palestinians, should govern themselves collectively through some sort of representative democracy. However, as a result of prejudice, we find two religious groups desiring absolute power and neither even considering a coalition: a democracy.
During last Tuesday's media coverage of the assassination, a representative of the Arab nations noted that the key to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is Palestine. As perhaps many of you are aware, the Palestinians demand a sovereign nation and control of their people's destiny. The Israelis want the same thing for themselves.
I call upon the Israelis and Palestinians to become self-centered (surprised)? and to decide what is best for themselves as individuals. Then, if they are rational beings, they will realize that their person is far less desirable than living with that person, and less, still, than loving that person.
If you are thinking now that I'm idealistic and that such a thing is impossible, and if you also believe in God or Yahweh or Allah, then you are a hypocrite. A man incapable of putting faith in something as conceivable and tangible as good will among men, cannot put faith in something as inconceivable and intangible as a god. Even the communists have more faith than such a man. Though they don't believe in God, they at least believe in themselves.
Ye of little faith, of little dreams, of little goals,
are destined to be of little good.
Thomas S. G. Hunt Leavenworth freshman
Who will be next?
To the Editor:
F. L. Wassermann Salina senior
John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin
Lee King, John Lemon, Anwar Sadat — who
will be elected.
It's truly sad we can't realize that we all share a common bond by inhabiting the same world.
Non-prep speaks out
My reasons are simple. It is definitely a negative reflection on a person's character to be seen in a shirt, a pair of pants or even a pair of socks, that was obviously paid for with more than enough money to buy a product of superior quality.
I am a militant non-prepie and I freely admit it. Every time I see an alligator, I make a comment about Garnaloids or Handbags, or whatever else is handy.
In other words, preps are paying an extra $10 or so just for that little emblem that sits on the pocket, when they could be getting a better product. Obviously, it's a mistake for anyone who doesn't have money, more specifically, money that he doesn't know what to do with. More subtly, even if one does have extra money, why settle for an inferior product?
This letter is addressed to the writer of "Preps v. Non-preps," (Oct. 6 Kansan).
My second reason is more an argument against' the people who usually wear such garments than against the garments themselves. We are not asking for a direct affront to the rest of us, "I better than you, just because I'm wearing this stuff." Need I restate that such an attitude will not make anyone any friends? The natural outlet for the clothing itself, hence the anti-cloak movement.
For these reasons, and others too disgusting to express in any publication, I ask your support for Aerial Spraying to Control Prepie Populations.
Ray Dillinger
Wilmore freshman
KANSAN
USPS (856-440) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas. Subscriptions to mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas City and $1 for six months or $8 a year in Topeka. Postmaster: Send changes to the address of the University Daily Kanan, Fint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor Business Manager
Scott C. Faust Larry Leibengood
Managing Editor Robert J. Schaad
Campaign Editor Tatuo Ternery
Editorial Editor Kathy Brussell
Associate Campus Editor Rory Permakran
Assistant Campus Editors Kate Fount, Gene George
Assignment Editor Cynthia L. Carrie
Retail Sales Manager Terry Knoeber
Campus Sales Manager Judy Caldwell
National Sales Manager Matrice Locahoe
Classified Manager Laura Meneeser
Production Manager Ann Hornberger
Troubleshooting Manager John Egan
Sales and Marketing Adviser John Oberstran
General Manager and News Adviser Rick Musser
9oc Bantos 81
MX plan no deterrent to big blast
Nuke 'em high
Nuke 'em low
Nuke 'em till the
Burn and glow.
Mr. Reagan is not alone in this oversight, however. In fact, over the past few years, talk of first, second- and third-strike capabilities has warped the perception of our nation to the point where the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has been forgotten.
When it comes right down to it, that's what would happen if nuclear war broke out; we would all burn and glow. But, many people, including President Reagan, seem to have overlooked the fact that no matter how you add it un, nuclear war equals nuclear death.
The lawmakers have chosen to ignore MAD for the past decade and have busied themselves with careful plans on which is to push what button during which strike. In their spare time, they engage in ludicrous acts to increase the risk of vulnerability." In their most recent funfilled sessions, they have debated the future of the MX missiles.
Although quite suitable for cocktail parties on Capitol Hill, the fact that this topic of discussion is receiving the amount of national attention it deserves exemplifies governmental shortsightedness.
If Reagan is genuinely concerned about our window of vulnerability, which is supposedly gaping open at present, he should be making plans to slam it shut quickly. Instead, the plan would be for it to remain unguarded until the late 1800s. The obsolete B-1 bombers and MX missiles, constituting the backbone of
Reagan's plan, won't become operational until at least 1986.
Not only will Reagan's plan leave our defense capabilities virtually unchanged until the second half of the decade, but when the vital MXs do become operational, their ability to be nonexistent. Thus, the efficacy of the missile and of the overall plan is greatly reduced.
Our president assures us and Congress that the MXs will work just as well if they are
CORAL BEACH
housed in "hardened" Titan silos in Kansas, Arkansas and Arizona. He has also assured us that the reason he decided not to have the missiles placed in underground facilities in Utah and Nevada had to do with national safety and economy.
Just because we come from the Midwest doesn't mean we have the brains of cowrs, Mr. Reagan. Nor does it mean that we will bow lips ashes to the Kansas wheat bows to the wind.
Exactly why the commander in chief decided to move the future location of the MX is not known. The commander forever locked away under his boyish black locks. However, the question is open to
speculation. Are Ronnie and Nancy perhaps closet Mormons?
The "why" behind the decision is, however,
not as important as the probable consequences.
It doesn't really matter that the boys in Ronnie's band out West won't have to worry about their soil being sulted with the MX. What does matter is that the heartland of America will still be at the top of the enemies' nuclear hit list. But then, the folks out here are used to that. We've had the Titans and Minuteurs for years.
No matter where the MX missiles are housed, whether in Utah with Brigham's boys, or here here where all of us buffalo and antelope roam, there is little assurance that they will make a difference when the buttons are pushed.
What exactly a "hardened" silo is no one knows for sure. Perhaps the existing silos are to be coated with a compound similar to the crack-resistant substance used by the first lady's makeup artist. Whatever the hardening process involves, one question still remains: will it make any difference in the long run? Probably not.
Adding the MXs to the Midwest will just be adding one more puff of smoke in the end. But Reagan says not true, not true. The MXs in the city are caused by these causes because they will be housed in 'hardened' silos.
The idea that intermediate missiles could actually deter the big one coming through our open window is at best a jest, and at worst a paranoid belief of an insecure government. When it comes right down to it, we will either live together or burn and glow together.
Power plays make ASK. SAC ineffective
ASK was made up of interested students at each of the Regents institutions. They hired a full-time lobbyist to work for them in the town of Topeka. ASK decided that it would represent The Students and did lots of research so it could do its job well.
Once upon a time, there was a student lobby group called the Associated Students of Kansas. There was also another lobby group called the Tennis Team. Both they both wanted to be the voice of The Students.
SAC was made up of the student body presidents of each of the Regents schools, seven to be exact. They thought that they were more prepared to represent students. After all, candidates elected by The Students and the Student Opinion was set up by law to voice the Student Opinion to the Board of Regents.
Both SAC and ASK spend lots of money trying to influence the state legislators and the Regents. But the Regents and the legislators became confused because lots of times the groups differed in what they thought was good for The Students.
Pretty soon, neither group took SAC or ASK seriously.
the legislators decided that The Students probably weren't very important anyway; not enough of them voted to make a difference. What could happen to the legislators if they didn't vote? If they did, they would be forced to listen only to SAC because they had formed the group and usually agreed with its views.
It was a sad state of affairs for The Students because they were being taken advantage of. Both SAC and ASK tried hard to represent the Students, but the groups were divided on the
The legislators took advantage of the situation one spring and passed a 22 percent increase in student tuition, $3\frac{1}{2} \%$ percent of which went to various counties around Kansas in the form of tax relief. The Students were poor, but they didn't have a unified voice with which to object. So they received their tuition checks for $63 more than they did the year before.
Does any of this ring a bell? Do you all remember being a part of this storybook tale? Now for the next chapter. Unfortunately, the plot thickens.
Within the past several weeks, Kansas State University has decided that it might cut off its
CINDY
CAMPBELL
funding for ASK, making the already floundering organization less even less effective. K-State's absence would cause a tremendous financial problem, and ASK would have considerably less pull with the legislators (i.e. the money-givers) if the second largest university in the state were shewn
Dan Cunningham, KU's ASK campus
Without ASK, KU's sole student representative would be our student body president, Bert Coleman. He would represent all 24,000 of us on legislative issues of all sorts. Coleman is a student, like you and me. He must go to classes and pass tests. He also has many other duties to perform here on campus, duties he is having trouble accomplishing now.
representative, speculated last week that KU would also have to pull out, because it couldn't afford to make up for the 40-cents-a student fee that the 20,000 K-State students wouldn't be able to pay. The extra money, it would be supporting a much weaker organization than it did before.
Placing all the power in the hands of one person is bad business in my book. Although ASK has faltered many times in the three years since KU joined, it can more fairly represent the organization as a defined need for the organization to operate unhindered, an ability now being challenged.
But most of all, Coleman was chosen as president on a campus-based platform. How
many student body presidents run on legislative issues? I doubt that many of the incumbent presidents of the seven Regents universities are capable of doing so. A few Kansas on legislative issues, I just really doubt it.
There is a move under way within SAC to put that group at the apex of power, with the ability to veto any move made by ASK. You can imagine letting all the Apathy Coalition presidents across the state get together to rip up an action they disagree with. What a fact.
Despite Coleman's opinion that he can indeed handle the responsibility, what about the ability of the next student body president? What would have happened if an Apathy Coalition had won them? How proud I would have been to send some non-competitive goalloy off to lobby for me in Toekea.
As feeble as ASK's actions may sometimes be, I think it, as well as SAC, does the best job it can, considering its constituency. The groups do, however, need to make a concerted effort to put up a united front for the benefit of the students. Power plays are unnecessary, cooperation is the key. The students are most effectively served if both organizations are on equal footing. IFASK takes care of its admitted internal problems, it will then deserve equal stature.
Letters policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the letter is for an administrator, the letter should include the class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters.