The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20120511115450/http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/theforum/
College Media Network

The Forum

Commentary

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 2:17 a.m.

Hatchet endorsement: John Bennett for Student Association president

by The GW Hatchet

John Bennett. Francis Rivera | Assistant Photo Editor

This year’s candidates for Student Association president each demonstrated a clearly defined ethos and sense of priority.

The choice ultimately came down to two exceptional candidates, and deciding whom to endorse required us to not only look back over their endorsement hearings, platforms and debate performances but also consider what traits we value most in a student leader. To that end, The Hatchet’s editorial board confidently endorses junior John Bennett for Student Association president.

Bennett is a truly impressive candidate with a long history of student advocacy and a generally comprehensive plan for arriving at his goals. His platform strikes a healthy balance between tasks that can be quickly achieved and those that require a year’s worth of advocacy, and, more importantly, he has the strategy to accomplish both.

His plan to get SA senators more involved and motivated by including them in upper-level advocacy plans is a smart response to the SA Senate’s typical apathy. It also speaks to his own high-impact term as finance chair this year, during which he reformed the financial allocations process and notably kept open dialogues with the many student organizations on campus by holding well-attended town halls.

We are confident Bennett will be able to negotiate the University bureaucracy to push his agenda and make the right connections to achieve his goals. Not only does Bennett have the knowledge of campus issues, he knows how to apply it. His plan to revitalize Columbian Square, for example, which includes bringing in new furniture and making the area more inviting, is an efficient short-term response to the lack of student space. This could provide next year’s student body with improved community space while he continues to lobby for his long-term agenda to appropriate a student hub. When pressed on the infeasibility of a point of his safety and security platform, he was willing to be flexible on its details as long as student safety did not suffer.

Bennett’s performance during the student media debate didn’t simply exemplify the success he’s had in his current role as SA finance chair. When posed questions about student life issues that weren’t mentioned on his platform, such as how to ensure that campus groups are accepting of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, he responded with a smart and effective solution. To that question, he suggested involving major student organizations in safe-zone training and perhaps lobbying to award Greek excellence points to chapters that have trained members.

But we worry that Bennett is not willing enough to ask for the counsel of the students whose vote he seeks. There is no denying he has a huge ego, and while this might fuel a tenacious students-first lobbying agenda, he should make it clearer that he will continue to seek student input.

If elected, we have confidence that Bennett will bring about important change during a short one-year term.

Ashwin Narla has made frequent communication with the student body the focal point of his campaign. Often, Student Association executives become so entrenched in their efforts that they lose sight of the students they are serving, but Narla’s strong students-first platform and plans to hold frequent “State of the Campus” updates reassures us that, if elected, he will keep his ear to the ground and maintain dialogue with his peers. Narla’s attitude about what sort of chief lobbyist he would be is one of the greatest strengths of his platform. He asserts that he won’t just work with administrators as one student taking on the University, he will, through his outreach, mobilize the student body to also be involved in initiatives and lobbying efforts.

Student space is a principal campus issue and Narla has a clear focus to garner an area that will serve as a student union. He said the Multicultural Student Services Center townhouse could serve as a model for an ideal community space, and we see this as a smart and attainable goal if he relentlessly lobbies for it.

That said, Narla’s platform comes off at times as too dependent on his passion and lacks a clearly outlined method. If elected, Narla must take the time to develop an even more comprehensive and detailed plan for how to achieve his platform promises. We were very impressed by his fervor and charisma during his endorsement hearing – he certainly has the magic – but during the debate it became clear that his platform lacks serious substance beyond plans for frequent student outreach. There is a huge difference between having charisma and being able to carry a platform out. While he couldn’t be expected to speak to certain issues with as much savvy as an SA insider, we were disappointed he wasn’t able to address student issues unrelated to the SA with much substance.

Narla’s infectious personality and commitment to improving student life would make him an excellent lobbyist. We were disappointed to find that his platform wasn’t developed enough to match the strength of his passion and desire to lead the student body.

Jeremy Iloulian was a clearly knowledgeable candidate with a variety of innovative reforms for day-to-day student issues. His career services plans are a creative fix, and his understanding of the initiatives already in motion shows he will capitalize on that trajectory and advocate for even more student-focused reforms in the field. His method for gathering student concerns – by holding town halls that are co-hosted by the SA and specific student groups or schools – is a wise fix for the poorly attended town halls the SA usually holds.

Iloulian was able to showcase his impressive resume and list of accomplishments through his strong debate performance. This gives us confidence that he has the tools to be an effective lobbyist for students.

But Iloulian’s call to allow members of Greek life to self-adjudicate is a concerning one, as all students should be subject to the same set of regulations and enforcements. This policy goal is such an egregiously bad idea that we can’t help but worry he hasn’t thought all the way through the rest of his platform.

Will Thompson made a notable effort to demonstrate his commitment to building strong relationships, which we also believe is key in effective lobbying. His platform drew attention to a number of innovative issues that would have otherwise gone unaddressed during this campaign.

But Thompson’s ideas are not fully developed and many of the changes he pledges to achieve have already been taken care of, such as his desires to improve alumni connections with students and limit construction noise.

While it is important to distinguish oneself from the other candidates by having a variety of campaign goals and identifying unique issues, latching onto ideas that are already solved or in progress does not make for the strongest lobbying strategy.

Ben Pincus’ platform read more like one for executive vice president than president, and even when pushed on his goals, he remained exclusively committed to calling for internal reform to the SA Senate’s financial allocations process. His goal of increasing financial allocations transparency would require him to usurp power from the future SA finance chair and executive vice president – power we suspect neither person will be willing to cede.

Pincus demonstrated little knowledge of campus issues aside from SA reform, and when pressed on what else he would pursue, his responses were ambiguous. Pincus’ sole plan for SA reform would require effort over the summer and first weeks of the school year, and we can’t help but think that if elected he wouldn’t serve as an advocate for real student issues after that.

You have a number of candidates to choose from, but there is only one who can provide results as next year’s SA president. Vote John Bennett for SA president Wednesday and Thursday.

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 2:16 a.m.

Hatchet endorsement: Ben Leighton for executive vice president

by The GW Hatchet

Ben Leighton. Michelle Rattinger | Senior Photo Editor

Although the pool for Student Association executive vice president was small this year, the candidates still presented a diverse array of ideas and goals. With distinct resumes and leadership qualities, each candidate would surely make his or her own unique impact on the SA.

Two of the candidates demonstrated extensive knowledge of campus issues, and all raised awareness of differing leadership styles and methods of achieving their goals. The Hatchet’s editorial board reviewed platforms, questioned the candidates during endorsement hearings and considered their performances at the student media debate before making its decision.

The choice came down to who was both knowledgeable about the pressing issues on campus and who will be able to motivate and lead the SA Senate to represent the student body next year. For those reasons, we endorse Ben Leighton for Student Association executive vice president.

Leighton has an impressive understanding of the University and how to best execute his goals. And he understands and is keen to rise to both roles required of the executive vice president.

He clearly knows the right administrators to speak with when issues arise, has an extensive understanding of the Marvin Center fourth and fifth floor changes. He also has a clear commitment to driving forward reforms students call for. His time on the Marvin Center Governing Board would bolster his lobbying for student collaborative space in the Marvin Center.

Leighton said in his endorsement hearing that advocacy is all he has done while at GW, and he boasts an impressive track record with last year’s dining overhaul. This is an important quality in an executive vice president, as the person holding that title serves as one of the student body’s chief lobbyists. That Leighton already has a history working with administrators to achieve student life focused goals shows he has the know-how to be executive vice president.

Leighton’s plan to keep the SA Senate accountable for its campaign promises by meeting with each senator one-on-one and motivating him or her is also a strategy we were glad to see he emphasized, considering the SA Senate has historically been mired by lethargy and inefficiency. He clearly possesses natural leadership qualities that will help him command the respect and aid of the SA Senate.

That said, some elements of Leighton’s platform, such as his plans to promote the D.C. experience through increasing student access to sporting events and city attractions come off as too programming-heavy. This hardly seems the best use of time or focus for one the chief student lobbyists.

Abby Bergren’s platform demonstrated her awareness of the important balance an effective executive vice president must strike – that of a manager of the SA Senate and a lobbyist for the student body. She offered up her own plans for how to involve student advocacy in many of the administrative leadership roles that are shifting. For example, she spoke during her endorsement hearing about wanting to be one of the first people to work with the new Center for Alcohol and Drug Education director Alexis Janda.

The efforts she would focus on, such as student space, would have long-term benefits for the student body. But her platform doesn’t just take a panoramic view of University issues; she also provided small-scale, easy-to-accomplish goals, such as improving outreach and working to reduce transcript fees first.

Bergren’s answers were logical and measured; she focused on creating a list of achievable action items rather than pledging impossible or vague promises – something many candidates did this year. That said, the fact that Bergren was so soft-spoken and passive during the debate leads us to worry that she will not be able to effectively lead the SA Senate and hold it accountable. While her ideas were thorough, she did not project a strong leadership quality and this is discouraging, as motivating the SA Senate is a tough task for even the most commanding of executive vice presidents. Her holistic platform and campus knowledge are overshadowed by these concerns.

Junior Austin Brewster brought an interesting perspective on leadership to the election, and his dedication to being a supportive executive vice president is laudable. He did not present a platform of issues he plans to address, but instead promoted the fact that he would work as an effective team member and foster compromise among senators. But in talking to him, we found that he simply does not understand what it takes to both manage the SA Senate and lobby effectively for student causes.

Brewster, when pushed on which issues he’d address, said he would lobby to turn the fourth floor Marvin Center space into a tutoring initiative, but he could not outline plans of how he’d achieve that. He said the executive vice president is “just a title.”

But we don’t agree. A vote for him would disregard the importance of the student body’s second highest lobbyist.

We believe Leighton will work tirelessly to address campus issues with an eye toward the future and a focus on student well-being. Vote for Ben Leighton for SA executive vice president Wednesday and Thursday.

Monday, Sept. 26, 2011 5:08 p.m.

The Honors Program and the Vern

by Douglas Cohen

IN RESPONSE to “Honors program eyes Vern space’’ by Cory Weinberg (Sept. 19, page 1): We need perspective on the proposed expansion of the University Honors Program to the Mount Vernon Campus. Students don’t join a four-year academic program to get housing for one year in Thurston, of all places. A fact proven as only 5 percent of incoming UHP students this year said they would definitely not join the program if optional housing were on the Vern, while another 9 percent said they would probably not.

The dual-campus plan constitutes a reaffirmation of the honors excellence. GW wants to double-down its investment in the Honors Program by giving the program more space, resources and opportunities. Expanding the Honors Program to the Mount Vernon campus is also an investment for the Vern and for GW as a whole. Let’s be honest, GW needs help making the Vern work. If a rising tide lifts all ships, consider the Honors Program to be the moon.

The ultimate success of this plan is, of course, unknown. To succeed, this must be a true expansion as is proposed. The Honors Program will need adequate resources and space, especially in Foggy Bottom, to support our students at the level they deserve and require. Perhaps more important will be the continued involvement, support and constructive criticism from our students. We are, after all, a community. We rely on our students to speak up when they know of a better way, to question the status quo and to bravely take on each and every new opportunity. I can think of no better students to whom I would entrust this task.

- Jared Meyer is the University Honors Program Communications Coordinator

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 p.m.

Letter to the Editor: Campus experience is a valuable asset

by Annu Subramanian

I’m writing in response to the column written by Logan Dobson, “Campus leaders, unemployed
 graduates” (April 11, pg.4) concerning his opinion that employers don’t appear 
interested in on-campus leadership experiences because he was not asked about these 
experiences during job interviews. While I appreciate the concerns Mr. Dobson voices in his opinion
 piece, and have heard them before from students, I would like to provide the employer perspective.

Employers value student extracurricular and leadership experience. An employer will ask you
 about these experiences in an interview when they are relevant to an employer’s business. If your
 description of the experience uses action verbs and key words in the employer’s industry, the employer 
will not only ask about it, he or she will want to explore your stories from that experience to help them
 understand what skills you’ve developed and what you’ve learned as a result of that experience. If, on 
the other hand, an experience description is vague and not specific, the employer will ignore it and
 move on to those experiences that he or she believes are more relevant. After all, an employer spends no
 more than 30 seconds scanning a resume.

I would encourage any graduating senior who expresses the opinion that Mr. Dobson does to
 visit his or her college’s career center. Please don’t stop
 participating in on-campus, extracurricular and leadership experiences. Visit your career center where 
you can learn how to translate what you’ve learned in those experiences into targeted, marketable
 accomplishments!

Ann G. Mills

The writer is the assistant director of career learning and experience and the GW Career Center

Monday, March 7, 2011 11:59 p.m.

Hatchet endorsement: Chris Clark for Student Association president

by The Hatchet's Editorial Board

When the candidate pool for the Student Association’s top spot is short on remarkable candidates, The Hatchet’s editorial board can come to a concise decision easily – this year was different. There are many notable candidates with diverse and thoughtful ideas on how to improve the Student Association running for SA president, making the job of picking the best student an arduous one.

The decision was notably difficult, but after hearings, platform reviews and watching his performance at the debate, The Hatchet’s editorial board confidently endorses Chris Clark for SA president.

Clark’s experience and understanding of the SA and student issues make him the most qualified candidate to take on the position. He was able to balance short and long-term goals in a manner that assures us he will carry out reforms on persistent student issues like printing and dining, while pushing forward innovative plans. We look forward to seeing the progress he will make on study space, as he detailed a specific plan to open Duques Hall to all students. He has taken an impressive initiative to jump-start his platform, and with administrator contacts already in place, we believe he will make strides in student advocacy.

Clark knows the limitations of the president’s office but said he is prepared to pressure the administration if it is not acting in the best interest of students.

We do hope that if Clark is elected, he will re-evaluate specific platform priorities before taking office. Some of his ideas seem underdeveloped and make us feel as though he simply included them in his platform in order to round out an innovative platform. We hope that he weeds through the less-reasoned campaign ideas and really focuses on the issues that have a great impact on students. While something such as George’s List, one of Clark’s flagship issues, may be helpful for students, we would much rather he focus more time and energy on his plans for study space and room in the Marvin Center. His experience comes with baggage but he was incredibly tactful when dealing with aggravated students during the debate.

Following Clark, we feel John Richardson is a formidable candidate for the SA presidency.

Richardson would make a very effective lobbyist – one who could relay the concerns of students to administrators. He had multiple good ideas for how the SA could improve communication with students outside of the organization and his wealth of knowledge on some issues proved impressive. The sophomore proved equivalent and understanding Monday night’s debate. Importantly, Richardson provides a fresh, unweighted perspective for the top job. He would start in May with only his laurels to rest on, giving the SA a new face for the next year.

Richardson’s platform was not as substantial as we would hope – we do worry how students could hold him accountable when he did not give them a number of ideas to work with.

Caleb Raymond, a former SA senator who is returning to the body, brings a great deal of SA experience and an unmatched love for our University. Raymond has a laudable history of student advocacy on the SA, and is in touch with student organizations. He also demonstrated he has the necessary background knowledge on many issues, and that he will make accountability a top priority if elected.

Raymond may not be as effective as the main liaison between the students and the administration because he doesn’t understand the logistics of some of the larger issues. His ideas aren’t as well-developed – when asked to expand on his sometimes vague platform, he did not seem to have a strong enough understanding of how to follow through on his own goals.

Jason Kaplan was surprisingly knowledgeable about the issues he truly valued, such as University Counseling Center reform. We believe that Kaplan can make some progress on some issues and that he has a valuable understanding of how the SA operates.

Kaplan did not demonstrate the same passion for all of the issues as he did for a select few, and some of his ideas required explanations that he was not able to adequately provide. In addition, he runs a campaign of saying he goes against the political nature of the SA, and yet we worry he feeds into that politics-first atmosphere. During the endorsement hearing and debate, it felt as if we were hearing from a politician.

Kwasi Agyeman felt less like a presidential candidate and more like a candidate for Program Board. He totes a program-heavy and program-dominated platform and demonstrated a lack of knowledge on main student issues like Sodexo. He by and far has the most attainable platform peppered with the most innovation, but we greatly fear he would replace advocacy on the big issues with advocacy for a block party. He has a great understanding of his own activities and groups on campus, but he would not make an effective president. His idea for the “Buff and Blue Block Party” is great, and we hope whoever is elected takes it up.

In talking with Josh Benjamin, we felt as though there is a blatant lack of knowledge on his end regarding how the University operates, what students want and how students feel outside of his own niche group. He did not have the passion for the role that the other candidates demonstrated, though we did appreciate his willingness to put aside his personal feelings on issues such as Gelman Library in order to better advocate for what many students want. His platform says that he is just a student, but ultimately, that is all we see him as.

Of course, if you think that the SA is ultimately ineffective and you want your vote to change the structure of the SA entirely, Phil Gardner should be the candidate you choose. If elected, Gardner will spend his time next year working on drastically reforming GW’s main student lobbying voice, so if you would like that time to be spent on reform instead of on advocacy, he is the best option. Gardner’s platform is fundamentally difficult to compare to other candidates’ because his idea is so different – but it could work on some levels. The SA is marred by inefficiency and apathy. He has a plan, though not necessarily the most specific plan, to fix that. A larger issue stems from serious unlikelihood that the Board of Trustees will vote to abolish the SA. In that event, the students would be left without a voice for the remainder of the year.

The pool for SA president is large and diverse, but ultimately we feel as though Clark is the most qualified for the position. Be sure to cast your votes Wednesday and Thursday and choose Chris Clark for Student Association president.

Monday, March 7, 2011 11:56 p.m.

Hatchet endorsement: Ted Costigan for executive vice president

by The Hatchet's Editorial Board

All of the candidates for Student Association executive vice president this year demonstrated an impressive knowledge of the issues facing students and all of them appeared qualified.

Unlike previous years, there were no candidates with a blatant lack of understanding of what the role of the EVP entails. Similarly, no candidate seemed unaware of what students care about and all addressed the important role of student organizations.

Our endorsement comes down to who we thought would lead the SA Senate best. In that vein, we endorse Ted Costigan for executive vice president of the Student Association.

Costigan’s comprehensive platform, knowledge of the SA Senate and willingness to press administrators made him our first choice for the position. Furthermore, he demonstrated an incomparable passion for student advocacy. When asked for specifics of his platform – which was made up of ideas ranging from lowering costs to adding a Naval studies minor – he exhibited an understanding of what students want and what  he could achieve in his position. While we would have liked to see even more specifics about how he wants to achieve his goals, he did show that he knows what GW needs to address and how administrators operate.

A common misconception about the EVP is that he or she is simply another lobbyist in the SA, but Costigan noted that as EVP he will be managing the SA Senate and relaying information directly from senators and students to the president. An EVP’s ability to keep control of the SA Senate is also key, and we believe he will likely be the candidate who will be most successful in that regard.

We also noted Costigan’s passion for advocating on behalf of students. He is not afraid to be controversial and fight with the University on issues that students want to see changed, though we note that this unconventional method could falter if elected.

It also seems as though many aspects of his campaign, and even one issue in his platform, feel too political. The Gelman Printing Cost Protest was conveniently scheduled just days before students vote and such issues on his platform like “FixIt” appear to be campaign gimmicks. After the debate, we have serious concerns that Costigan’s fighter attitude will turn into a joke. Costigan, you are passionate and energetic, but please don’t let that cross over into a gimmick.

Zahin Hasan also knows how the executive vice president role is supposed to function and he offers a notable knowledge of what students want. Hasan brings valuable level-headedness and a critical eye to student lobbying.

Hasan understands not only the ways in which he wants to achieve certain goals, but also the limitations the University places on achieving those goals. For example, in his discussion of study space, he stated that he wanted to open buildings like Duques more often to students for studying, but that this could be a potentially expensive endeavor involving security and housekeeping concerns for that building. We hoped that Hasan’s platform would have exemplified that understanding and Hasan overall has shown himself to be a reasonable and straightforward candidate.

Though he demonstrated an understanding of the issues, his platform does not necessarily reflect that and it is neither as comprehensive nor as specific as we had hoped.

Aria Varasteh’s greatest strength in his campaign for EVP may also double as his greatest weakness. It is refreshing and interesting to have a candidate hone in on the specific role of working with student orgs and his detailed platform lays out an effective method of completing his goal. That said, we worry that his focus is almost too narrow, and that he has not fully demonstrated an understanding of bigger issues that the everyday student faces.

Varasteh’s plan for finance allocations to ensure that the SA does not run out of funds before the second semester of next year was truly impressive. He clearly had a very deep understanding of the allocation and co-sponsorship process and the way in which student orgs work with the SA. He was not able to identify enough of the other issues to tackle and lacked the critical eye the EVP needs in addressing the larger student concerns, such as the quality of J Street.

Amanda Galonek, a longtime SA senator, offered valuable insight into the SA, but simply proved underwhelming in her understanding of student issues. When pressed for more details on her vague platform, she glossed over points, and her expectations seem somewhat unrealistic as to what she can accomplish in the role, such as managing the senate by working to foster a greater sense of camaraderie among senators.

Galonek does offer firsthand knowledge of the SA’s second top spot, as she served as the chair of the SA Senate Rules Committee. She would also offer continuity to the advocacy we have seen from the senate this year. She also has taken great initiative to get the ball rolling on some issues, including the effort to minimize GWireless timeouts and problems with this central campus technology.

Samantha Free simply did not demonstrate a comprehensive enough understanding of the student body, the University and how the SA operates. This knowledge is of course vital to whoever the students elect to EVP.

Free was extremely energetic and charismatic, and was able to offer a laudable idea in the form of grant writing for student organizations. Org leaders could utilize this skill to try to obtain more funding, and student orgs should definitely have the opportunity to work with the SA to learn to write grants.

We believe as a whole, the pool for EVP is impressive. All of the candidates have numerous strengths but we confidently believe that Ted Costigan is the best choice for SA executive vice president. Cast your vote Wednesday and Thursday.

Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 2:19 a.m.

Corey Jacobson: Obama’s State of the Union outlined a coherent, organized plan for America

by Lauren French

This post was written by Hatchet columnist Corey Jacobson

Amid all the anticipation and post-speech analysis, there was something truly remarkable about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address Tuesday: it was merely a more coherent and organized view of the same pragmatic stances Obama has held throughout his entire presidency.

Tonight, he outlined five priorities that America needs to pursue not just to boost today’s economy, but to propel our nation forward for an entire generation: innovation, education, infrastructure, deficit reduction and reforming government.

The president referenced his growing list of accomplishments in these fields, including the incentive-based education fund “Race to the Top” and his new executive order to reduce bureaucratic red tape. But he also outlined a unifying vision going forward. It was one that acknowledged the tough times ahead—his proposed five year freeze on domestic spending can provide a
clue as to what he means—and the many arguments to be had over how to best address those five priorities. Ultimately, it was a
vision that welcomed the contention, so long as it moves our country forward.

Truth be told, we deserve a debate that goes far beyond the all-too-familiar (and equally all-too-simplistic) big-versus-small
government. We need to have a great debate, one that addresses the many nuances of our society. It needs to be about smart and necessary government versus superfluous bureaucracy.

As the president put it, “We shouldn’t just give our people a government that’s more affordable. We should give them a government that’s more competent and efficient.”

Obama’s speech tonight was far more than a performance; it was a statement of purpose, and it must have Republicans a little scared. But the greatest thing is that if they are truly serious about buckling down and making some tough choices, it shouldn’t matter in the slightest.

For a Republican perspective, read Andrew Clark’s post, “Obama pledged centralism, but will his actions back up the rhetoric?”

Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 12:14 a.m.

Andrew Clark: Obama pledged centralism, but will his actions back up the rhetoric?

by The GW Hatchet

This post was written by Hatchet columnist Andrew Clark

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address Tuesday night outlined a series of ambitious and forward-looking goals, many of which I can agree with. Simplifying the U.S. tax code, streamlining government agencies, tossing harmful regulations and freezing discretionary spending, among other initiatives, are all long over-due objectives that Congress and the White House can work together towards.

It is alarming, however, that while Obama talked of axing oppressing regulations, he failed to address the heavy regulatory burden that his own health care and financial overhaul bills have set on the country. Insurance companies, facing even further regulatory hurdles, have raised premiums to meet government requirements, and states have begun cutting their Medicaid budgets as their programs become too expensive. Any realistic discussion of burdensome regulations must include a broad reform of Obama’s health care law on the table.

As Obama said, we should also invest in our infrastructure and our education. However, swiftly addressing our massive deficit and debt issues will guarantee that we have that money to invest. Likewise, it will not matter how many laws Congress passes to help Americans receive health coverage if our Treasury Department runs out of the funds to pay for the policies.

The president should push for a balanced budget amendment, and actively listen to the concerns the business community has over his health care reform law. Further, he should use the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling to put serious deficit-reduction steps into law, to show the nation and world the United States is serious about sorting its fiscal house into order.

I am no doubt pleased that the president struck a centrist and reform-minded tone Tuesday. But actions will speak louder than words, and we cannot afford to tinker around the edges of a problem that needs to be faced head on.

For a Democrat’s perspective, read Corey Jacobson’s post, “Obama’s State of the Union outlined a coherent, organized plan for America.”

Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 9:43 a.m.

Staff editorial: Devote more than one day to service

by The GW Hatchet

The Hatchet’s editorial board encourages students to do community service not only on the upcoming national service day honoring Martin Luther King Jr., but to continue that service after the holiday has passed.

Although most GW students are looking forward to a long weekend, many Colonials are also looking forward to Monday’s day of service, which honors Martin Luther King Jr. This national day of service serves as a reminder that the first official weekend back is not simply a time to catch up with friends or get ahead on “syllabus week” readings. Instead, it is a time to give back.

Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 9:41 a.m.

Staff editorial: A prestigious addition to our faculty

by The GW Hatchet

The Hatchet’s editorial board welcomes Ferid Murad, a Nobel laureate, to GW’s faculty.

The addition of a Nobel laureate to GW’s faculty shows that the University’s commitment to science is becoming more pronounced, a positive step after GW pledged $300 million to the Science and Engineering Complex last semester.

Older Entries