Posted on 10/17/2004 12:14:14 AM PDT by familyop
The presidential election comes down to one thing: trust. Who can the nation trust to serve the best interests of its citizens? Who can voters trust to carry out campaign promises? Who can adequately gain the trust of other nations in matters ranging from global trade to world peace?
Frankly, both President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, have given voters reason to doubt. But we would give the edge to Bush.
The last three years of Bush's first term have been marked by unusual situations for which there was little precedent to follow. This is a nation at war, but a different kind of war.
Therefore, it is appropriate that national security in general -- the Iraq war, in particular -- has received the lion's share of attention in this campaign.
President Bush's swift, firm response after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks united and reassured a rattled nation at a very trying time. He projected strength and leadership when that was most needed.
Bush's methods and rationale can be -- and have been -- questioned. The intelligence information provided to Bush and Congress before the invasion of Iraq was clearly faulty. The Bush administration also underestimated the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
However, Sen. Kerry seems to be overestimating his ability to do better.
Kerry talks about seeking international cooperation and forging coalitions as if Bush didn't attempt that. Bush did assemble a coalition. It is disappointing that more countries didn't make a greater commitment of personnel. But should the blame be placed on Bush or on nations such as France and Russia for attempting to ride U.S. coattails and enrich themselves through contracts with Iraq?
The bottom line is that no deadly terrorist attacks have been launched on U.S. soil since 9/11. How much of that is a result of greater vigilance and how much is a matter of luck can't be known. However, it is known that investigators have broken up suspected terror cells.
Economy
The economy is another crucial issue in this campaign.
The growth in the budget deficit and national debt during the Bush administration is disturbing. Much of that can be attributed to spending related to the aftermath of 9/11 and the war against terrorism -- not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but at home, with the beefing up of homeland security.
Kerry hasn't been very specific on how he would reduce spending. Indeed, he has stated not enough has been spent in some areas of homeland security and has questioned whether enough troops have been deployed to Iraq.
Tax cuts
The biggest difference relates to tax cuts.
Plenty of Democrats have gone along with the so-called "Bush tax cuts." Kerry has said he would retain tax reductions for the "middle class" and working poor.
Both candidates -- and Congress -- should pay more attention to spending reductions and paying down the national debt rather than pandering to certain sectors with tax cuts. Use the veto, if that's what it takes.
In determining who would better control the tax-and-spend mentality of Washington, it is revealing to look at the ratings given by the National Taxpayers Union to lawmakers. These "taxpayers scores" are based on votes with an impact on federal taxes, spending, debt and regulation.
In the last five years, 1999 through 2003, Kerry's scores have ranged from 7 percent to 18 percent. His running mate, John Edwards, wasn't much better, with scores of 12 percent to 22 percent over the same period. Having not served in Congress, Bush was not rated by NTU. However, during Vice President Dick Cheney's service as a Wyoming congressman, 1979-88, his ratings ranged from 50 percent to 70 percent.
Health care
On health care, Kerry has a more government-oriented -- and, therefore, more costly -- approach. Bush emphasizes individual responsibility, which could still leave many people without a safety net.
Bush favors giving new health-care tax credits to individuals and encouraging people to purchase high-deductible insurance. The estimated cost of his plan is $128.6 billion from 2006-2015.
Kerry calls for expanded federal health programs and subsidies to employers -- and, to a lesser extent, to individuals. Kerry's campaign, using a slightly different time frame, places the 2006-2014 cost at $653 billion.
Other differences
They have divergent views on education, energy policy, the environment and Social Security.
For example, Bush has called for allowing people to divert part of their Social Security contributions into private investment accounts. Kerry has called for reducing benefits for wealthy retirees or raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.
The next president also is likely to have the opportunity to name at least one new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.
These are weighty issues that could determine the course of this country beyond the next four years.
In these volatile, dangerous times, it is important to look closely at the vice presidential candidates, too. Edwards, a one-term senator, has limited experience, especially compared with Cheney, who was secretary of state under Bush's father, served in the Ford administration and spent a decade in the U.S. House.
It all comes down to who can better lead the nation, keeping it economically strong and strategically secure. In this election, that person is George W. Bush.
Either way we live in interesting times. They're more interesting than I'd prefer, actually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.