Military should bear
its share of funds cuts
I am writing regarding “Georgia congressmen on sequester” (ajc.com, Feb. 28).
Low-income families, especially mothers and children, could suffer the effects of sequestration due to cuts made in programs preventing violence against women, and programs such as WIC. Sequestration would also affect low-income college students who rely on aid programs to afford the ever-rising cost of a college education — a burden I bear myself, and wouldn’t be able to afford without my Pell grants.
A balanced budget should not be a burden low-income families and the shrinking middle class have to bear. Congress should reject any proposals that exclude Pentagon spending from being on the chopping block, and get the Pentagon’s seemingly unlimited budget under control before taking away necessary assistance to families in need.
CASSIE N. ANDERSON, ATLANTA
Who is SACS? How
did it get so powerful?
In “Governor’s actions trample constitution” (Opinion, March 4), Eugene Walker rightfully notes the outsize role the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) enjoys in determining public education policy. Leaving aside his obvious self-interest, he has a point: Who are these people, and how did their organization — privately run, unelected and unaccountable to anyone — get to be essentially in charge of deciding whether our public schools’ diplomas are worth anything?
The AJC has fallen short by not shining a brighter light on SACS, including its origins, operations and criteria for accreditation. SACS officials have been getting more powerful and aggressive in inserting themselves into Georgia politics lately. Parents, students and voters deserve to know who they are, and why they are interfering in public policy.
Whatever the admittedly bad conduct of school officials, they at least are elected and can be called to account by voters. We have no way of doing so with SACS, save the efforts of journalists such as yourselves. You do your readers a disservice in leaving this corner of today’s education controversies out of your otherwise excellent coverage.
MATT G. LEGER, ATLANTA
Requiring ID is just
a part of modern life
I am constantly amazed at the opposition to the requirement of government-issued identification to vote (“Some states still up to old tricks trying to deny vote,” Opinion, March 5).
Identification is a necessity for anyone wishing to drive, travel, use a credit card, cash a check, buy a drink at a bar, get admitted to a hospital or pick up a child from day care. I also find it a little hypocritical that the same people criticizing voter ID laws as discriminatory are the same ones calling for stricter enforcement of background checks for gun purchases — something that assumedly would require some sort of ID on the part of the buyer.
Proper identification is a way of life for all of us, and requiring it to prevent voter fraud is not only reasonable, but not out of line.
GENE PICA, CUMMING