Mr. Kerry is our choice
__________________________
Lead Editorial
The Baltimore Sun (Md.)
October 31, 2004
That headline will come as no surprise to regular readers of this page. Not because The Sun has a long history of lockstep Democratic presidential endorsements; it does not. But on the issues that divide the candidates -- indeed, issues that divide the nation -- in this election, The Sun has found President Bush's leadership wanting, and his decisions worse than questionable. Sen. John Kerry, for his part, brings more than just a new face; he brings credibility, intelligence and a precious opportunity to repair some of the woeful misjudgments of the past four years.
As we said in our primary endorsement of Mr. Kerry, he brings to the presidency two decades of distinguished and principled leadership in the Senate, an admirable familiarity with foreign policy and domestic issues, and a thoughtful, determined approach to governance.
In the last presidential race, Mr. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," an appealing combination that might actually have served the nation well. Sadly, he turned out to be neither.
His conservative credentials went out the window with a remarkable lack of restraint in taking the country to a pre-emptive war, with a host of astonishing assaults on civil liberties, and with a fiscal policy so irresponsible that the debt we will likely be leaving our children may well be the greatest financial burden any American generation has ever passed on to the next.
As for that compassion: In the last four years, this administration has cut funding for job training programs and Pell Grants (which subsidize college tuition for low- and moderate-income students) and steadfastly refused to support an increase in the minimum wage, which at $5.15 an hour is the lowest it has been in 50 years when adjusted for inflation.
But of course 9/11 changed everything. And certainly, in light of the terrorists' attack on this country, no president should be faulted for revising his priorities and adjusting his focus. However, President Bush has used the events of 9/11 to further an agenda that has included trampling individual rights and marching American soldiers into harm's way.
Make no mistake: We are engaged in two wars right now -- the one in Iraq and the one against terrorism. They are related only in that the focus on the former has used money and manpower that ought to have gone to the latter. As a result, Americans are less safe, not more so -- and are mired in a seemingly endless bloody conflict as well.
There was no immediate threat to these shores from Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There was no plan to win the peace, in the unlikely event that that opportunity should ever present itself.
Indeed, perhaps the only aspect of the war in Iraq that has been worse than the shifting justifications for launching it has been the actual conduct of the occupation. Too few troops when it mattered, inaction during the widespread looting, the reliance on unsavory Iraqi allies, a predisposition to resort to airstrikes against urban insurgents, the torture and abuse of prisoners, the contempt for a free press, the "bring 'em on" taunt, the idea that the United States is prevailing over terrorism rather than stoking it in Iraq, and the lack of sufficient care to provide American troops with the equipment they need -- all these failings can fairly be laid at the doorstep of the Bush administration.
This is why changing horses even in midstream is a good idea. It's difficult to imagine that anyone could do a worse job in handling Iraq than Mr. Bush.
Yet we must face squarely the thought that should give every voter pause: Will the terrorist movements that have targeted American power interpret the electoral defeat of Mr. Bush as a strategic victory for them?
There would certainly be plenty of jihadist chest-thumping following a Kerry victory. But we are certain that it would be short-lived. Mr. Kerry is not talking about cutting and running. He would clearly take office with America's longtime allies bending over backward to give him the benefit of the doubt, so relieved would they be by the Republicans' departure. There is a far better likelihood under a President Kerry that the international community would be drawn together to find sensible ways of promoting good government in Iraq and isolating the extremists. The power of public opinion is enormous; Iraqis themselves would be inspired and encouraged by a new tone from Washington and its worldwide echoes. The solution to the conflict would be theirs -- as it must be, in the end -- with material and moral support from the United States.
And what of that other war -- the one we should have been fighting? Senator Kerry understands that the key is in special operations against terrorist cells and in close international cooperation. Call it militarized police work, but it makes much more sense than regime change brought about with cruise missiles and half the fighting force of the U.S. Army.
Under Mr. Kerry, national security could be achieved without compromising the rights of all Americans. He has said he would retain portions of the so-called Patriot Act necessary for genuine security, but would require a regular court order before the government could monitor, say, library records, and he would restore some limits on wiretaps. This makes sense; it represents a balanced approach that has been badly lacking in the current administration.
The war in Iraq, with a price tag expected to pass $200 billion next year, has put the nation at risk not only by undermining important ties with traditional allies but by gobbling up dollars that should be going to making this country more secure. America's ports are in large part unprotected, its nuclear plants are not well-secured. The ranks of first responders in case of crisis -- firefighters and police officers -- instead of growing, have stagnated or declined because many are in the military reserves or National Guard and have been called up to fight in Iraq, and because money that might have gone to hiring more of them is going to plug holes left by a decline in federal funds to cities and towns. What's more, President Bush has cut funding for first responders, emergency equipment and port security in this fiscal year's budget.
And that's only a portion of the burden being placed on taxpayers at the state and local levels, even as the number of families living in poverty increases. Social services, schools, work force development programs and environmental protection measures all have been strained to the breaking point as federal funding declines and cities struggle to serve their citizens -- or just to fulfill the requirements of unfunded federal mandates. Senator Kerry has been a strong advocate for more funds to protect ports and nuclear plants. And his proposal to rescind the Bush tax cut for those making more than $200,000 a year could mean some relief for overburdened cities struggling for a reasonable measure of safety.
As for those tax cuts, they were skewed toward the very wealthiest Americans and billed as an engine for job creation, but in fact the jobs have not materialized. There are now about 800,000 fewer than there were four years ago, and many of the "new" jobs pay far less than the ones that disappeared. It is hardly a trade-off designed to make middle-class families feel more economically secure. And this month, the president signed a $137 billion tax break bill aimed at special interests with hefty lobbying power in Washington.
Mr. Kerry would be hard put to quickly remedy the astonishing profligacy of the current administration -- the country has gone from an annual budget surplus of about $235 billion in 2000 to a record annual deficit of about $420 billion in 2004 -- but he has a far better chance of doing so than does Mr. Bush. In addition to rolling back the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, Senator Kerry would reinstate pay-as-you-go spending and tax rules, which force Congress to find funding to offset tax cuts and spending increases. Though the president sneered at the idea when the two debated, in fact PAYGO -- a critical reform adopted by the first President Bush -- would help the United States begin to dig out of the fiscal hole he has dug for Americans, present and future.
There is, beyond the stunning reality of lives lost in war and the stark figures of mounting deficits, an ethos of arrogance in this administration that we find unsettling, if not dangerous. Its most palpable manifestation came in the inexorable march to war, but it also is reflected in Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy talks with industry lobbyists who essentially wrote the administration's energy bill; in the president's own campaign appearances, where those not already committed to vote for him have not been admitted, and in Attorney General John Ashcroft's zealous trampling of civil liberties -- to the point of suggesting that opposition to the president is un-American.
Three years ago, the United States sustained a devastating attack that shook this nation to its core. Briefly, in the immediate aftermath, America was one with all the other civilized countries of the world, and there was a sense that we might emerge wiser, stronger, and safer. But that moment passed. Voters should not let a second chance go by.
johnkerry.com |
