56 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/11/03 5:26am)
At the end of each semester, a little part of our lives comes to an end, and a new chapter opens. Cliché, I know. The end of this semester marks the final of my 55 columns for the Indiana Daily Student and yet another chapter (the final at IU) in life is set to begin. But you don't care about me or my history; what about our future?\nOver the last few years, I've used this forum to complain and advocate and suggest change on all sorts of issues. If you read it even semi-regularly, you have no doubt found I don't like President Bush and that, well, there are a lot of things I don't like.\nNegativity, it seems, often (perhaps too often) was a pervading sentiment. You might have agreed or disagreed, but regardless, I hope you too formed some sort of view or opinion.\nWhat we do with all the views and opinions we form is critical. To some, social views are unimportant, but others have a desire to affect change. If an opinion is worth believing deeply in, it's worth fighting for.\nThis brings me to 2004. If politics is your thing, 2004 is your time. Republican or Democrat, the opportunities to affect the future of your community and your nation in 2004 will be great. \nCheck out deanforamerica.com or georgewbush.com or the site of whichever candidate strikes your fancy. Call local political candidates to help out. Talk to your friends and family about issues you believe are important. The list goes on and on (personal preference dictates that I focus on politics).\nWhy should we do these things?\nBecause beliefs are worth fighting for.\nBecause when you're a 20-something, mediocrity isn't good enough.\nWhen we're grown up, we will no doubt have plenty of compromises to make, but young people are supposed to fight for what they believe. We are supposed to pursue happiness like there is no tomorrow.\nIt is people fighting for their beliefs that has allowed this country to become so great. There were risks to those who marched in the South in the 1950s and '60s for racial equality. There are risks for those who profess homosexuals deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else.\nBut these risks are worth taking. Life is worth seizing. Sometimes you've gotta go all out on an open-ended draw hoping you'll get there on the river.\nYou can seize the day in the new year that will be ushered in after this semester by getting involved in 2004. This election is going to be critical to the country's future. To me, the answer to "four more years of Bush?" seems obvious, and it might seem obvious to you as well (though the answer might be different), and now, at this young age, it is a prime time to get involved in your community and your society.\nOf course, there are any number of ways to take life by the horns. Each person should do what floats his or her respective boat, and I claim no expertise on this subject outside the area of politics.\nBut whatever you do in your next chapter, carpe diem! And if you already do so, keep on carpe diem-in'!\nLife is full of negativity. This column -- and our own opinions -- are too often full of criticism. It's time to fight for a positive solution to all the problems we so easily find. In 2004, let's fight for our beliefs, and, as a generation, proclaim that we won't be mediocre.\nIt's been 55 wonderful columns. Thanks.
(12/04/03 5:17am)
Congress was awfully busy this year. As lawmakers raced out the door for their holiday breaks, they approved a $400 billion Medicare bill and nearly passed a $23.5 billion energy bill.\nThe bills, both pushed by Republicans, are some of the biggest expansions of federal spending in recent history. The Medicare bill creates a huge, new entitlement, and the energy bill, far from solving our real problems, contains a buffet of goodies for energy companies.\nAdd these two bills to the massive tax cuts and a $6 trillion debt (growing nearly $400 billion this year alone), and after asking yourself, "What the hell are they thinking?" you're left to wonder, "What happened to the Republican Party?"\nThe party of limited government has become, in the 108th Congress at least, the party of new entitlements and record-setting federal deficits. Did I miss something, or is this not the Republican Party of old?\nNo, nothing was missed. \nThe times, they are a changin'.\nThese actions prompted Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to write about his party in a Nov. 26 Omaha World-Herald opinion editorial. "We have come loose from our moorings," Hagel wrote. "If we don't get some control over this out-of-control spending and policy-for-the-moment decision-making, we will put America on a course that we may not be able to recover from."\nWow. This is coming from a Republican -- a conservative one. Another conservative Republican, Hoosier Congressman Mike Pence (who I never thought I would agree with on any subject) claimed, according to the Washington Post, "The party of Ronald Reagan, the party that came to Washington to change the welfare state, could fall into that 75-year parade of entitlement makers."\nThe party, indeed, is coming loose from its moorings. But, why is the party changing, and how did it happen? George W. Bush ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism," and Newt Gingrich, et al., were all about fiscal conservatism when they took over Congress in 1994.\nBut, after they won, they got greedy. They also got shortsighted. The last year of Congress was a grand attempt by Republicans to provide everything to everyone at no cost to anyone. They cut taxes for the rich (and, for good measure, a little for the middle class) and increased government programs. I'm guessing they plan on telling people about the huge deficits later.\nSee, it turns out that "fiscal conservatism" only means lower taxes. Apparently, spending more is part of the equation, too. Who knew? \nVoters didn't. In fact, voters are the real losers in this huge transformation. They elected the Republicans to be responsible with money. Now, come to find out, it's the Democrats who know how to manage a checkbook.\nIt's important to note that government entitlements aren't necessarily bad. In fact, entitlements are an important part of our society -- they signal our commitment, as a nation, to help the least fortunate among us. But the Republican Party has always stood for a reduction in such entitlements along with a reduction in taxes. It was a principled stand.\nAs Hagel also said, "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility, limited international entanglements and limited government. We have lost our way."\nThe party Sen. Hagel knew was absent from Congress this year. Democrats are now in the party of fiscal responsibility and living within our means. Sorry, Sen. Hagel, your party of fiscal conservatism is, it seems, no more.
(11/20/03 5:45am)
Republican senators talked and talked last week. And then they talked some more.\nIn a move designed to draw attention to the blockage of President Bush's judicial nominees, the GOP staged nearly 40 hours of debate. The debate, which lasted through two nights, featured both parties taking to the floor and seemingly reading from talking points as they reiterated their positions.\nRepublicans pointed out that Democrats had taken the unprecedented step of filibustering judges. Filibustering, you will recall from high school government class, is when senators stall a vote by continually debating an issue; it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. According to the New York Times, Senate majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "Vote them up or vote them down, but just give them an honest up or down vote." I'm not too certain the rest of the Republicans weren't dutifully taking notes of Sen. Frist; their speeches all seemed to follow the same script.\nDemocrats, on the other hand, contend they are only blocking the most extreme judges, and that their actions are not without precedent. Democratic leader Tom Daschle, for his part, claimed that those complaining about the filibusters were "participants in the effort" to block the nominees of President Clinton, according to the Times. Because Republicans were in the majority for most of Clinton's presidency, they didn't have to go to the unusual step of filibustering; they could just deny Clinton's nominees a hearing.\nThe logic on both sides, surprisingly, is sound. Republicans are right that filibustering judges (six have been filibustered thus far) is a new and dangerous step. The precedent is horrible. As Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was quoted in the Times, "We'll have our opportunity someday, and we'll make sure there's not another liberal judge, ever!" \nScary stuff.\nSantorum misses one very important point, though. Republicans did have their chance, and they did block judges. Their chance was during the Clinton presidency, when they often slowed the approval of judges down to a trickle. Quick channel surfing by C-SPAN2 during the Clinton presidency would often find Senate Democrats complaining about many of the same things as Republicans now find so contemptuous.\nBut Republicans didn't have to filibuster, because they were in the majority. Whether it is filibustering, denying a hearing or placing a secret hold on a nominee, the end result is the same: nominees were being denied a vote.\nI won't pass judgment on any of these individual nominees; I'll leave that up to senators. But what I have heard about those nominees blocked (of the six blocked, by the way, more than 160 have been confirmed -- a very large amount) suggests that their nominations deserve intense scrutiny. \nThe way to give these judges their due consideration, however, is not to hold a theatrical debate at the taxpayers' expense. Republicans have driven up the debt enough; they certainly could have made their point without keeping the Capitol building open (at a large cost) over two nights. \nThe way to give them consideration isn't by whining. This show by Republicans stinks of childish complaining because they couldn't get their way. Senators should be mature enough to deal with not getting their way. While the debate was going on, seniors were going without prescription drugs and soldiers were dying in Iraq. Those are truly important issues.\nBut the debate went forward. Republicans reiterated their hypocritical argument, and, at the end of the debate, Democrats blocked more judges. Overall, the discourse left much to be desired. Hopefully this isn't a sneak peak at the politics of the future.
(11/13/03 5:37am)
It's good to be a Democrat in Indiana this week. Last week was election week, and it went well, but that isn't why it was a good week for Democrats in Indiana. That reason is Joe Kernan.\nYes, Indiana's seven largest cities will all have Democratic mayors come next year, and our largest city, Indianapolis, elected a Democratic majority to its council for the first time in history. And, I know that you are yelling (don't worry about being too loud, the guy next to you wants to yell, too) at the opinion page, saying, "Jim, we elected a great mayor and seven good city council members here in Bloomington, too."\nTo all this (while it gives me a good feeling), I can only respond with: "But, Joe Kernan's running." The Joe Kernan I speak of is Gov. Joe Kernan. Kernan became governor, as you will remember, upon a very sad occasion -- the death of Gov. Frank O'Bannon.\nKernan had previously said last year when he was lieutenant governor that he would not run for governor in 2004. Upon assuming the governor's office, Kernan initially said he hadn't changed his plans, then he grew silent, and, last week, he proclaimed, according to The Indianapolis Star, "I don't want to watch this one from the sidelines."\nIn response, Democrats across the state let out a huge sigh of relief. It's not that we didn't have qualified candidates. State Sen. Vi Simpson and former national Democratic chairman Joe Andrew were both seeking the job. But neither campaign was gathering excitement, and neither was seen as having a credible chance at continuing the Democrats' 16-year hold on the governor's office. Both have now left the race.\nAssociated Press columnist Mike Smith put it best when he wrote that Democrats have, "no more fighting. No more contested primary. No more doubts they could beat a guy like Mitch Daniels, the heavyweight on the Republican side."\nWell said.\nI was present in Indianapolis last Tuesday when Kernan addressed a group of supporters at a victory party for Mayor Bart Peterson. The night belonged to Peterson and local Democrats, but the energy didn't fill the room until Kernan took the stage to chants of "Run, Joe, Run!" Energized? Oh, yeah.\nKernan's likely Republican opponent is Daniels.\nHe has the support of the president and will be a formidable candidate in the fall, but, with Kernan's entrance, the race will be competitive.\nBoth men have attributes and downfalls. Daniels will have the support of a very popular president. But, on the other hand, he was in charge of that president's budget. It's a budget that has sent us spiraling into debt. Indiana's governor has a large influence on the state's budget, and Daniels will have to prove he can handle the responsibility of managing a budget in a fiscally responsible manner.\nKernan, a former Vietnam POW and mayor of South Bend, was lieutenant governor for nearly seven years -- a position where he was responsible for the state's economic development. Indiana has had its share of rough times, which will definitely be an issue in the campaign, but Kernan's record as an advocate for Hoosier businesses is strong. He was, for example, Gov. O'Bannon's point man on the successful Energize Indiana economic growth legislation which passed last year.\nWith two strong candidates, the voters will have a race on their hands next November. We don't know who will win, but we do know the race will be tough. And exciting.
(11/06/03 5:28am)
The economic news cycle experienced a bit of a change of pace last week. For once, it was good. The news was that our Gross Domestic Product (GDP -- the measure of economic output) grew by 7.4 percent in the third quarter of this year.\nThis growth was the largest of its kind since 1984 (you could just see the glee on the faces of the Fox News anchors as they pronounced that we hadn't seen such growth since Reagan was president) and it provided a needed piece of good news for the Bush administration.\nMany have explained this encouraging growth as a sign that President Bush's economic plan (tax cuts, in particular) is working. We've lost 2.6 million jobs during President Bush's tenure, but it seems that 7.4 percent makes it all better.\nIt sounds like a stretch to me. What's more, it probably sounds a little ridiculous to those 2.6 million jobless Americans -- until we start seeing more jobs, at least. But, for the purposes of this column, I'll agree with this assertion.\nLet's say that the president's tax cuts had everything to do with this record growth. What about that? Even if the tax cuts worked, would they be worth it?\nI don't think so.\nI say this even assuming that the jobless recovery becomes a jobs-a-plenty one. Jobs are important. But, jobs and economic growth could have been attained at a much lower cost and with much greater efficiency than by Mr. Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich.\nLet's talk debt. Presidential candidate Howard Dean has rightly called this administration the "credit card presidency." While President Bush has attempted to pull our economy out of the doldrums, he has done so with red ink. Red ink to the tune of $374 billion this year, according to the White House. Overall, our federal debt is more than $6 trillion (with a "t"), according to the Department of the Treasury. \nNow, $6 trillion (or, $370 billion, this year) is a very nice number, but what does it mean? It means that, in addition to your car payments and your Visa bill, the federal government has taken the liberty of shouldering you with a little more debt. If you divide the $374 billion that President Bush gave you last year by approximately 287 million Americans, it comes to about $1,300 for each of us -- plus interest.\nAt the same time, the President's tax cuts -- which went predominantly to the wealthy -- made him resist Democratic attempts to fully fund programs such as homeland security and education. The stimulus package, it seems, was costly in many ways.\nPutting all of this information into perspective, it is tough to argue that the tax cuts were worth it, even if they did cause this recent economic growth. There is no question that the multibillion dollar tax cuts lead to an increase in economic output, though no one can be sure how much. \nTo jobless Americans, however, 7.4 percent means little. Even if all of the jobs come back (and we can hope they will), the cost that President Bush has shouldered us with will forever weigh down our generation. Cutting taxes massively while not reducing spending at the same degree is a poisonous brew for the taxpayers of the future. We can only hope for a new president with an antidote.
(10/30/03 5:23am)
Last year, I wrote a column detailing the negative effects that Wal-Mart has on workers, communities and society as a whole. As you've probably noticed, Wal-Mart is becoming increasingly omnipresent in our society. It's tough to turn a corner without having to watch your head for those crafty falling prices we see in the commercials.\nIn that column, I tried to detail why something we think is so good can really be so bad for us. Recently, there have been a few incidents regarding Wal-Mart that have caught my attention. These incidents deserve mention, and they should serve to spark new debate about the effects of America's largest retailer.\nThe most conspicuous event was a federal raid that netted over 300 illegal workers at Wal-Mart stores across the country. The workers, who were members of cleaning crews, were not hired directly by Wal-Mart, but by independent contractors. \nAlarmingly, there is evidence that Wal-Mart was aware of the presence of illegal workers in its stores. An Oct. 24 Associated Press article cited an anonymous federal investigator who said investigators found evidence that Wal-Mart executives were aware of the illegal workers.\nRegardless of Wal-Mart's complicity with these violations, they are a symptom of the company's unending war on workers. At Wal-Mart, the bottom line is the only consideration. Workers' wages must be kept low, at any cost. In the past, this has meant cracking down on workers attempting to get better pay, violating labor laws and denying adequate health care to employees. This recent crackdown indicates that Wal-Mart's demand for low wages is forcing contractors to break the law.\nAt the same time, while Wal-Mart's contractors break the law, it is forcing other companies to attempt to break the backs of their workers. Because of Wal-Mart's extremely low labor costs, other companies are forced to demand major concessions from their employees.\nHere in Indiana, nearly 4,000 Kroger workers are preparing to strike after failing to reach a new contract agreement with management. Similar grocery strikes have occurred in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri and California. According to an Oct. 27 Associated Press article, stores like Kroger pay as much as $10-14 per hour more (including health care and pension costs) than Wal-Mart. \nSuch a price disparity is forcing quality community employers to demand concessions from their already stressed workers. This is evidenced by the Kroger disputes in Indiana and around the nation. Traditionally, supermarkets have been able to provide workers with a decent wage and health care (Kroger, for example, currently pays 100 percent of health care premiums, according to the Indianapolis Star). Wal-Mart, on the other hand, suppresses workers' pay and benefits by actively and illegally fighting unionization efforts. \n The recent federal crackdown on Wal-Mart and strikes against competing supermarkets are clear evidence of the negative effect Wal-Mart has on communities. Not only do its large-box stores take away from community atmospheres, they also serve to drive local wages down. While its cost demands force contractors to hire illegal labor, Wal-Mart's war against workers forces other companies, such as Kroger, to demand major concessions from its own workers.\nSome day, each of us will look for a job in our community. If the current trend continues, stores like Wal-Mart may continue to force down our future quality of life. Hopefully, this realization and the aforementioned new developments will force us to think twice before shopping at Wal-Mart in the future.
(10/16/03 5:09am)
Last week, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh announced on his program that he is addicted to prescription pain pills. Limbaugh began taking pain pills after surgery in the 1990s and has since become addicted.\nLimbaugh has a reputation as an ultra-conservative commentator. He can be heard on the radio, every day, spewing his uncaring message of law and order to the extreme. Rush likes to make the other side look dumb, and he thinks liberals are bad people. You know the drill.\nBut, most of all, Rush Limbaugh has shown an extreme lack of compassion for those who have fallen on rough times. As Newsweek and several other media sources have reported, Limbaugh, in 1995, said of drug abusers, we should "find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river."\nOn his last show, after confession of his illegal addiction, Limbaugh implored his audience: "I ask now for your prayers." Mr. Limbaugh, who has made a career off of criticizing others, is now asking for their prayers and mercy.\nShould the man who decried compassion for others now receive a taste of his own medicine?\nNo.\nLimbaugh is an unfair and malicious radio host, but he is the perfect example of why some minor drug abuse -- for those without a criminal record -- should be responded to with treatment instead of rigid punishment.\nIn the state of Florida (where he lives), Limbaugh could receive five years in jail if he was dealing in large quantities of painkillers, according to Newsweek.\nThere certainly are instances where five years in jail is merited for someone who is dealing drugs. Marijuana, cocaine and painkillers all have a deleterious effect on people and on society. But all too often, society gets caught in a trap of thinking that the best way to deal with a small-time drug user is to just throw him or her in jail.\nThat's been Limbaugh's mentality. But now, the shoe is on the other foot. \nSo, let's look a little more closely at Limbaugh's case. He had surgery in the '90s on his back and started taking pain pills then. He wasn't taking them with any malicious effect. He got hooked. His body has felt the negative consequences of the drugs over the years, but, so far as we know, he has never hurt anyone because of his drug use.\nLimbaugh certainly isn't the only American in this situation. According to Newsweek, 1.9 million Americans have illegally taken OxyContin (a pain medication) at least once. What's more, there are many people who have abused other drugs (marijuana, cocaine) occasionally and have gotten caught.\nLimbaugh would likely argue that such offenders should be tossed in jail. But, for a first-time offender, what would that accomplish? Do you stop someone from using drugs by hardening them? Indeed, many courts in this country recognize that rehabilitation -- instead of incarceration -- is often the way to go. For small-time and non-repeat offenders, a little bit of compassion often goes a long way.\nI would rush to point out that I'm not trying to indict our criminal justice system. There are plenty of good rehabilitation programs which are frequently utilized. But, Rush Limbaugh's case is a perfect example of why the uncaring rhetoric he preaches should be rejected.\nAs Limbaugh asked, I will say a little prayer for him tonight. I also hope that those helping him with treatment and those in the criminal justice system will show him a little compassion. Maybe, then, he will learn that a little compassion can go a long way.
(10/09/03 5:19am)
A big story emerged in Washington, D.C., last week. It concerns Valerie Plame, a clandestine CIA operative. Plame served under "non-official cover," which means that when working abroad, she doesn't enjoy any sort of diplomatic immunity. Yet, a senior Bush administration official decided to give Plame's name to the media.\nShocking.\nIn case you haven't heard this story, gather around, because for lack of a better word, it's unbelievable. It has quite a few twists and turns, but I'll try to give the bare necessities.\nRemember the whole controversy about Bush claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger? Well, the guy who traveled to Niger and investigated and discounted this story is former Ambassador Joe Wilson.\nWilson published an opinion column this summer stating that the White House had distorted the Niger uranium claims. A few days later, according to Sunday's Washington Post, columnist Robert Novak asked a senior White House official (Novak has not disclosed any names) why Wilson got the assignment to investigate the Niger claims.\nThe official's response, according to Novak, was, "Well, his wife works in the counterproliferation section at the CIA, and that she suggested it, his mission." Her name followed.\nAnd, ladies and gentlemen, a controversy is born.\nRegardless of the circumstances, it is inexcusable that someone in our government would disclose the name of an undercover CIA agent. Such disclosures can put lives at risk. But, in this case, we can't disregard the circumstances.\nHere they are: Ever since Wilson's claims about uranium in Niger, the White House has been trying to discredit him. This can be evidenced by the official's claim that Wilson got the job because of his wife. In fact, Wilson is an accomplished diplomat who, according to the same Post article, was the last American diplomat to deal directly with Saddam Hussein. What's more, it was the CIA that appointed him to investigate the Niger claims in 2002.\nSince then, Wilson has come out against the war in Iraq. Many have tried to discredit his Niger investigation because of his political views. Such arguments are fair. But, to disclose the name of Wilson's undercover wife and to put her safety at risk is not fair.\nIt is reprehensible.\nNow, I know many people will claim that such a leak is purely accidental. This logic doesn't fly with Joe Wilson. On "Meet the Press" this Sunday, he said, "I felt that … it was rational that if you were in administration and did not want people talking about the intelligence or talking about what underpinned the decision to go to war, you would discourage them by destroying the credibility of the messenger who brought you the message." He continued, "This administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife."\nFor its part, the Department of Justice has ordered a probe of the leak, and Bush (who I am confident was not personally involved in this leak) has demanded that all White House officials hand over any pertinent information. Hopefully, this investigation will get to the truth of this situation.\nDespite the results of this investigation, the leak of Valerie Plume's name is intolerable. The attempts of the White House to discredit Joe Wilson's report -- which the CIA commissioned -- are also unacceptable. But trying to discredit Joe Wilson by leaking the name of his undercover wife puts the credibility of the Bush administration, and of our intelligence community in general, at risk.
(10/02/03 5:21am)
A few years ago, as a high school junior, I spent the summer in Washington, D.C. While there, I was a page in the U.S. Senate. As a page, I got to witness first-hand the debates and actions the Senate takes on a daily basis.\nThis time was amazing, but something seemed to be missing from the Senate. The body that is supposed to debate some of the most important policy issues facing the nation and the world doesn't, in fact, debate at all.\nIf you watch the Senate on C-SPAN2 (don't deny it, I know you set your VCRs), you will undoubtedly see the camera focused on a lone senator delivering a speech about this or that pet issue. The senator will be reading a prepared speech to (and, here's what the magic of television conceals) an empty room.\nAt any given moment, there are no more than three or four (out of 100) senators on the floor. Those on the floor, speaking about important issues, are rarely debating. The prepared speech is the method of choice.\nSuch speeches, needless to say, are rarely inspiring or thought-provoking. But, there is a movement to change this and bring debates back to Congress.\nNorman Ornstein, a Congressional observer, recently began encouraging the House and Senate to restore real debates to Congress. Ornstein's proposal is to bring several senators together to debate contentious issues in prime time and have a real discussion of ideas.\nLast week, as Monday's Washington Post reported, the Senate took Ornstein up on his idea. Four senators -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- took to the Senate floor to discuss the important issue of Social Security reform. \nSenator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who participated in the debates, was quoted in the Post as saying, ""It was serious, thoughtful." His Republican counterpart in the debate, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said "the basic concept of having the issue joined, right there on the Senate floor in real time, is a good one."\nTo the senators, a real, unscripted debate seems like an earth-shattering idea. But such debate and exchange of ideas is what we send people to Washington for. We don't fantasize about our representatives meeting with special interests or getting cornered by fellow legislators before making conclusions.\nWe want them, God forbid, to be forced to hear all sides of an issue in a public forum. Indeed, such forums were frequent until the latter part of the 20th century. Before television came to the Senate, many senators were forced to stay on the floor and discuss issues. \nThe underlying attribute of authentic debates is that they allow for a free exchange of ideas. Such an exchange helps uncover the flaws of weak arguments and the strengths of strong ones.\nFurthermore, debates are more exciting to watch than prepared speeches. Above, I joked about C-SPAN's lack of viewership, but who would want to watch a mundane senator deliver a canned speech? If we inject some controversy and some back-and-forth into the process, there will also be a greater reason to pay a little attention to Congress.\nHopefully, the debates encouraged by Ornstein will catch hold in Congress. We will never return to the days when Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun debated issues late into the evening under candlelight. But with the greater discourse that actual debates brings, people may show renewed interest in a process that returns decision making to a public forum, instead of a back room.
(09/24/03 5:15am)
I love when people make fun of the 10 Democratic presidential candidates. Such criticism brings a smile to my face.\nRush Limbaugh has called them the 10 dwarfs. A quick trip around CNN, MSNBC and Fox News will no doubt yield some conservative talking-head joking about the democrats' chances of beating President Bush. Or, for you faithful IDS readers, the occasional perusal of this editorial page will manifest the thoughts of those who turn President Bush's opponents into a joke. Yep, the Republicans are laughing.\nIt seems, though, that many of those making fun of their political adversaries might not be doing so just for comic relief, but, rather, because they wish not to look at the guy running on their side.\nThe economy is down, unemployment is up, and our foreign policy is … well … no one's really sure what our foreign policy is, except that it isn't good! Perhaps those who love to laugh at the democratic field should take a look at their own horse. \nThe proof is in the polls. The president still has decent approval ratings (58 percent according to the Washington Post on Sept.13, slightly lower in several others) because, let's face it, he's a likeable guy. On the other hand, a Sept. 21 CNN/Gallup poll showed several Democrats defeating Bush and others closely beating him. And, the Republicans are laughing.\nThey shouldn't be. \nWhile the Republicans are laughing about the Democrats, I'd like to take a look at some of the strong candidates that my party is presenting.\nThere are 10 candidates in total and some of them, to be sure, have no hope of ever residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But, let's talk about three of the candidates -- Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, and Gen. Wesley Clark -- to get a sense of how legitimate this field is.\nOf all the Democrats, Republicans love to laugh the most about Dean. As the New York Times' David Brooks put it, many Republicans are "gleeful" about the prospect of Dean being the nominee. His critics point out that he comes from the "liberal" state of Vermont, where, for example, homosexual civil unions are legal. \nBut then you hear about Vermont's balanced budget and universal health insurance while he was governor. His critics also might fail to mention his massive fundraising prowess and his ability to bring millions of new voters into the fold in 2004. \nWhat about Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina? A vibrant senator from a southern state, Edwards has working class roots and an incredible handle on policy issues. The senator, who as a lawyer volunteered much of his time, would be quite the opponent for George Bush in a debate. \nBut a moderate, affable Democrat from a southern state could never become president … that's laughable!\nThere's also the newest addition to the Democratic field, four-star General Wesley Clark. Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, is a moderate from Arkansas (seeing any trends?). Compare Wesley Clark's years of service in the military to George W. Bush's questionable service in the Air National Guard, and one adjective comes to mind for the general: electable.\nTo some Republican commentators, though, this field is a joke. Instead of communicating a clear message to the American people, many Republicans are just laughing about their potential opponents.\nI, for one, hope they keep laughing. The more they laugh, the greater the chance that a Democrat will be laughing all the way to the White House next November.
(09/18/03 5:54am)
Less than a week after the death of Gov. Frank O'Bannon, Hoosiers are still grieving. But just as Gov. O'Bannon would want, state leaders must also refocus on strengthening Indiana's future.\nThis tall task falls to our new governor, Joe Kernan. Kernan, who ascended to the governor's office upon O'Bannon's death, has the experience to lead Indiana. After serving three terms as mayor of South Bend, Gov. Kernan was lieutenant governor for the last seven years.\nAs lieutenant governor, Kernan was actively involved in leading the state and developing fiscal policies. Of Kernan's experience, House of Representatives Speaker Patrick Bauer told The Associated Press on Monday, "(Kernan's) not someone who has been sitting on the sidelines … He has been in the game."\nThis sentiment has been reflected by several state leaders. There is no doubt that Kernan is prepared to lead the state; the critical question is in what direction he will take us.\nWhile he has only 15 months as governor, Joe Kernan has the opportunity to seize the day and put forth a strong vision for our future. His ability to do this will determine, in large measure, the success of his administration.\nFrank O'Bannon left the state better than he found it, but there are still several problems facing us. First and foremost is the state's $800 million deficit, as The Indianapolis Star reported.\nIn order that Hoosier taxpayers won't be punished in the future, Kernan should take the lead on permanently fixing our budget woes. While the legislature and the governor worked hard to find common ground in the budget formulated this year, this budget should be reviewed when the legislature reconvenes in January.\nWith the national economic hard times, Indiana's resources in fixing its budget are limited. Fiscal responsibility should be the objective. Cutting spending or raising taxes are the tools.\nKernan must show leadership on the budget. Inaction, while a possibility, should not be an option. In this early hour of his administration, we can't be sure of his final proposals. But hopefully, he will keep up Gov. O'Bannon's commitment to education.\nPublic education is the great equalizer. In Indiana, regardless of your socioeconomic background, our Constitution ensures you an education. O'Bannon took this commitment seriously, and so should Gov. Kernan. Hopefully, he will use his 15 months to expand opportunities for disadvantaged Hoosiers and resist much of the recent political pressure to cut funding to inner-city schools.\nAs IU students, we also hope Gov. Kernan will keep higher education in mind. We all know personally how important state-funded higher education is to Indiana. Kernan must ensure funding for IU, Purdue University and others that allows these institutions to offer a high quality education to Hoosiers at a reasonable cost.\nAt the same time, he should build on O'Bannon's initiatives that will bring Indiana into the 21st century economy. For example, he could do this by fighting for full funding of Energize Indiana programs which fund scientific research programs at IU and elsewhere.\nAgain, Gov. Kernan has several fiscal paths to choose from. But when doing so he should, as Gov. O'Bannon did, remember Indiana's schools and, specifically, IU.\nWhile such decisions are for the future, Gov. Kernan must soon help the state move forward.\nIn his 1997 inaugural address, Gov. O'Bannon said: "Life is no brief candle for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I got hold of for a moment. And I want to make it burn as brightly as I can before turning it over to future generations."\nGov. Kernan would be wise to live by those words.
(09/10/03 5:16am)
There are times when it just doesn't seem right to write about politics, issues or whatever current event of controversy is on my mind. This is one of those times.\nOn Monday, Indiana's governor (our governor), Frank O'Bannon, suffered from what doctors called a "massive stroke" in Chicago, where he is in critical condition. You have no doubt heard about the story, which led local news coverage and graced the front page of Hoosier newspapers statewide. \nEvents such as this, when our leaders are stricken, force us to give pause and reflect on those who are in our thoughts. O'Bannon has been our governor since 1997. Before that, he was the lieutenant governor and a state senator. The consummate Hoosier, O'Bannon was raised in Corydon, Ind., and he received his undergraduate and law degrees from IU, with a stint in the Air Force separating the two.\nWhile we hope Gov. O'Bannon's service to Indiana will not be cut short by his condition, I'd like to discuss some of the attributes that make him a great leader for our state.\nTo get an idea of O'Bannon's stature, one need only look to how state leaders reacted to his condition. The Indianapolis Star quoted state Senate leader Robert Garton as saying, simply, "This is just awful."\nSimilarly, House of Representatives Minority Leader Brian Bosma said, "He's always done what's best for the state. I hope he's back." Both of these men are Republicans, and as O'Bannon is a Democrat, they were frequently political adversaries. However, O'Bannon has bipartisan respect around the statehouse.\nAs a moderate Democrat in a Republican state, O'Bannon had to learn to compromise in order to succeed. He serves not as a divisive, partisan figure, but as a principled, yet flexible leader.\nAccording to the Secretary of State's Web site, his first election as governor in 1996 was an upset, 51 to 47 percent victory. In 2000, Hoosiers gave him 56 percent of the vote, despite giving another Democrat, Al Gore, only 41 percent.\nIn 2003, as a legislative intern, I was fortunate enough to witness firsthand O'Bannon's bipartisan leadership. Though Indiana is being afflicted by the national recession, he implored the legislature to focus on the future with his "Energize Indiana" plan.\nThis plan worked to move Indiana forward by providing for economic development and modernizing our economy. Despite being at the end of his tenure as governor, O'Bannon resisted political pressure and focused on providing a strong future for Hoosiers. \nAnyone involved in politics knows that when representatives are elected to two, four and six-year terms, it's difficult to get them to focus on building a long-term economic foundation. But O'Bannon did just that. His plan came under criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, but he continued to fight for his plan while accommodating compromise, and "Energize Indiana" is now the law of the land.\nAnd "Energize Indiana" is just one example of O'Bannon's leadership ability. Over his 30-plus years of public service, he has had a role in much of the progress Indiana has made.\nUnder O'Bannon's tenure, Hoosier children have seen him lead the state to a greater commitment to education. Those who met the governor, whether in a formal or informal setting, were always greeted with a thoughtful and encouraging smile.\nWhile leading Indiana through fiscal crisis, O'Bannon remained positive and optimistic. During our darkest times, he continued forward with a strong vision for our future.
(09/04/03 4:23am)
Around our campus, Labor Day was a frequent topic Monday. We weren't discussing it to commemorate workers, but, as students, we were complaining that we didn't get the day off from class.\nThe occasional day off is something we have come to covet in America. We understand that we work (and learn) better when we get occasional vacation time. While that argument might not have been legitimate this Monday -- coming after four months of summer vacation -- it certainly is important to have weekends and holidays off from work and school.\nBut it hasn't always been like this. American workers -- often union members -- had to fight and sacrifice for vacation days, health care, overtime pay and other benefits. We now take such things for granted, but the rights American workers enjoy are coming under fire.\nPresident Bush is subtly advocating measures that would be detrimental to workers. The primary manifestation of the president's failure is his tax cuts. Under claims of populism, President Bush's tax cuts have lessened the tax burden on the top 1 percent of Americans, while increasing it on all others, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. \nTo be certain, the actual amount that all taxpayers are paying has gone down. But, the president has done this too, on the backs of hard-working Americans. His tax cuts have cut vital funds from federal aid. These funds, which go to state responsibilities such as K-12 education, have forced property taxes around the nation to rise and, in the case of higher education, the Bush cuts have indirectly made tuitions rise.\nAll the while, these deep tax cuts have not stopped us from losing three million jobs during the Bush presidency. Indiana has been hit especially hard. A recent IU study showed that Indiana lost 60,700 net jobs from July 2002 to July 2003, more than any other state.\nIt continually amazes and educates me that Bush is able to spin such actions as being helpful to the average American. He did a similar thing Monday when he spoke to an Ohio labor union.\nSpeaking to a union on Labor Day is not new for Bush or for any president. But, there is irony abound when a president who has been so unfriendly to working people -- those in unions especially -- takes the stage espousing his commitment to their well-being.\nAt this speech, The Washington Post reported, Bush promised to make efforts to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs (2.4 million, to be exact, during the Bush presidency). Manufacturing jobs are some of the best-paying in our economy, and, recently, they have been moving overseas in droves. One of the primary reasons for their departure is a trade policy that gives manufacturers incentives to move factories to countries where wages are low and environmental standards are non-existent.\n Bush, who has been a leading advocate of such policies, criticized unfair trade during his Labor Day speech, and he also promised to create a position in his administration to help manufacturers. It is heartening to hear the president make such a statement, but, considering his past actions and the upcoming election, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary.\nOverall, workers do not appear to be in a strong position on this Labor Day. We must, however, use this plight as a motivation for change. Hopefully, the three million American jobs lost will force us to pay greater attention to our economy, and to the possibility that our leader in Washington is not the man to get Americans back to work.
(08/07/03 1:23am)
People like to say public opinion is fickle. Well, people are right. Less than two years after Sept. 11, Afghanistan and airport security have dropped from public discourse, replaced by Iraq and Kobe Bryant. Shifting opinions is as American as apple pie (wait, no it isn't).\nSuch shifts of public focus are understandable, though, because in the United States we elect people (and pay them) to focus on all the issues, all the time. Can you imagine if we didn't elect people to direct public policy? That's a whole lot of studying up on intricate and important issues that, frankly, we wouldn't do.\nWe elect leaders to deal with important issues, and when their terms expire, they must put their record up to public scrutiny as voters head to the polls. But, a few people in California don't seem to like this concept. Some Californians are displeased with their governor, Gray Davis, so they have gathered enough signatures to force a recall election against the governor.\nIn California, the state Constitution allows that citizens can gather signatures (about 900,000 in a state of 34.5 million) to force an immediate election on whether or not to kick the governor out of office. The entire idea sounds benign enough; letting the people decide certainly can't be that bad, especially since we live in a democracy.\nHowever, such direct and knee-jerk democracy is not what the founding fathers intended. As I said, issues are complicated. You and I could certainly understand them, but to do so we would have to invest a large amount of time that could be better spent working or doing any number of things we enjoy.\nThis is why the United States is a republic, not a direct democracy. If we recalled unpopular public officials, then politicians would govern by polls, not by what is right. For example, the Clinton tax hike of 1993 certainly wasn't popular, but it led to eight years of unprecedented prosperity. We elect and pay politicians to make tough choices. Sometimes these choices are right and sometimes they are wrong.\nBut, imagine the chaos of constantly kicking unpopular politicians out of office. Government consistency would be a thing of the past. In times of crisis, when such stability is so crucial, we would have political friction and instability.\nThis brings us to California. California's economy is in the tank. California's governor, Davis, has approval ratings below 30 percent. I do not belong to the Gray Davis fan club, but the solution to California's problems is not to kick him out and change ship mid-stream. The solution is not for critics of the governor to tear him down while offering no positive alternative of their own. The solution is a combination of teamwork, good will and fresh ideas.\nIf Davis is replaced by a Republican, that person will have to deal with a Democrat-dominated legislature. I don't see that as a recipe for economic recovery. But, worse, a successful recall in California would set a hideous precedent. It would tell those who enjoy tearing down others in politics that they can gather a few signatures and kick out elected officials whenever they are unpopular (thankfully, we don't have a recall in Indiana).\nThis isn't what our founding fathers envisioned and thank goodness they didn't. Our republican form of government is a great thing, and this greatness shines the brightest at election time. But, as fickle as public opinion is, if California's recall-whenever-you-want phenomenon catches fire, political stability (and politicians who govern by facts instead of polls) will be a thing of the past.
(07/24/03 1:12am)
The power of the pen is mighty. The power of the airwaves might be even mightier. Indeed, there is a reason that the founding fathers felt the right to free speech was so important. When columns are written (well, maybe not this column) and when words are uttered on CNN, people listen.\nBut those who have public forums also have a responsibility to be fair, accurate and truthful. Certainly, the government does not mandate what you say, but you are not likely to see the IDS or MSNBC give a voice to someone with a history of lying.\nWhy? Several reasons. The one that appeals to me is that when people go on TV, they are influencing viewers' opinions. If I lie to you, you now have false information on which you might base false conclusions. In short, I see it as an issue of responsibility. If you are going to take the time to read these 600 words, I, at the very least, have the responsibility to be truthful and fair.\nYou won't find many books or TV shows that contain blatant lies. But recently I have been troubled by columnists and commentators who misuse their forums to make misleading and unfair claims. \nCase and point is conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter. Coulter recently has come out with a book, "Treason," devoted to telling us why liberals hate America. \nI have read portions of Coulter's book and have seen her frequently on television. I don't know what went on in her childhood, but she is filled with rage. She directs all this rage at, as she says, "liberals." Liberal: spooky word, isn't it? In "Treason," Coulter says things like, "Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason" and "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don't."\nWhat is wrong with such statements is that they group people together in vague ways (care to tell me what makes a liberal?) and say that not only are peoples' actions bad, but their motives are bad, too. \nAs conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan puts it, Coulter has "an hysterical hatred of (her) political opponents and an ability to say anything to advance (her) causes." Sullivan's point speaks volumes about the willingness of some public figures to lie in order to hurt the reputation (and impede upon the political success) of others.\nIt is important to note, though, that Sullivan was not applying that comment to only Ann Coulter. He also applied it to liberal commentator Michael Moore. Moore, who has called George W. Bush the "thief-in-chief" is guilty of many of the charges levied against Coulter. \nThe difference for me is that I agree with many of Michael Moore's political views. However, that fact causes me anguish when I see him make unintelligent and blanket criticisms. It hurts me because I know there is a way that a strong, factual and convincing case can be made against, for example, Bush's policies. But, it's not necessary to impugn Bush's motives to do so.\nPeople like Coulter and, to a lesser degree, Moore, who would bend the facts and make personal attacks just to further their own views, are abusing the public trust. Just as I have a responsibility to be as accurate and fair as possible, so do those who have multi-million dollar book deals.\nWe certainly should not limit anyone's ability to voice opinions. But when you hear outlandish statements like "Liberals (or conservatives) hate America," a healthy dose of skepticism might be good to have.
(07/10/03 1:04am)
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that states can make private sexual behavior illegal. This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, has been held over the heads of homosexual couples since that time by those who consider homosexuality deviant and immoral.\nThe Supreme Court came to its senses June 27. The Court ruled, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that the government can not criminalize private sexual behavior (for either homosexuals or heterosexuals). \nThis is a landmark decision, but an equally important issue arises when we look at the response of many to the Court's ruling. Many conservatives have stated that this decision should be feared because it could, some day, lead to the Supreme Court forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Defenders of the Court have said it does no such thing.\nBut, what if it did? What if this decision opened the door to gay marriage in the United States in the near future? Though American society might not be ready for gay "marriage" yet, I fail to see why eventually recognizing it is such a bad thing. If society is to say that we cannot discriminate based on race, gender or national origin, shouldn't we then say that we should not discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry?\nThis belief is based upon the premise that it is not the government's right to legislate morality. Why? My morals are likely different than yours, but neither of us has any right to say the morals of one are better than the morals of another. We can certainly base law upon morals in circumstances where the behavior we are restricting is harmful (like murder), but, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion for this case, "The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." \nThis wording certainly is very broad, but it is unlikely it would be used, at least in the near future, to require recognition of gay marriage. Many states -- Indiana included -- have not taken even the step of protecting homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace.\nA push was made for such legislation in this year's session of the Indiana General Assembly. As an intern in the legislature, I watched several Democrats and all of the Republicans in the House of Representatives vote against a bill to give workplace protections to homosexuals. But, what was even tougher was hearing the derogatory comments some legislators made about homosexuals and feeling the pain of my homosexual co-workers who had been, essentially, called second-class citizens by their state.\nWhile we might not be on the cusp of allowing gay marriage, now is the time for gay people and straight people to unite for equal human rights for all, just as blacks and whites joined hands in Selma and all across the nation during the middle of the last century. This is our generation's civil rights battle.\nWere I in the same position 50 years ago, I have no doubt I would not write this column. Fear would have overcome me. Even today, I still feel compelled to make it obvious somewhere in this column that I am not gay; that is my own ignorance. And it is a sign of the work to be done. We must start by recognizing that this is not an issue of gay or straight; it's an issue of human rights.
(06/26/03 12:40am)
This Tuesday, the League of Conservation Voters, a non-partisan environmental advocacy group, released a "report card" for President Bush on his environmental record. His predecessors, Republican and Democrat, frequently have received sub-par grades from the LCV, but President Bush's grade sets a new low: F.\nThe report begins simply and bluntly by stating: "George W. Bush is well on his way to compiling the worst environmental record in the history of our nation." As I read through the report, I was shocked by the systematic and detrimental damage that the Bush administration has done to the nation's -- and the world's -- air and water.\nIn the area of clean air, President Bush has proposed the "Clear Skies Initiative." With a name like "Clear Skies," such an initiative should, beg my pardon, clear the skies. According to the LCV, the initiative does no such thing. The League states: "Environmentalists, public health officials and state and local air pollution control agencies charged that the plan would, in fact, repeal and weaken public health protections of the current Clean Air Act, while replacing them with standards that are at best deferred and incomplete."\nThe president has marketed this program as one that would give flexibility to polluters so they can economically update their facilities and, in the long run, decrease pollution. Such a claim masks the reality that polluters will exploit any excuse to pollute. In fact, and in a twist that might surprise many lay observers, some of the biggest supporters of the "Clear Skies" initiative were the polluting industries themselves.\nThe Clear Skies Initiative is only one way the administration is undermining air quality, but, for the purposes of this column, it is time to move on. Our water has not found a friend in President Bush, either. The Environmental Protection Agency itself has admitted that Bush administration rule changes could exempt as many as 20 million acres of wetlands and an estimated 60 percent of the nation's streams from federal protection, according to the LCV. \nThe Bush administration, in what may have been an attempt to counter the impending LCV report, released an EPA report of its own on the nation's environment. The New York Times said the report showed an improvement in our air and water of significant proportions over the last 30 years. This report is encouraging. (Though, I can't help but lack optimism that Bush will sustain the progress we've been making.) What is extremely troubling, however, is that the Bush administration has chosen not to release a portion of the study that concluded "global warming is caused at least partly by human activity, like the rising concentrations of emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes, and that global warming could threaten health and ecosystems," the Times reported,\n Such an omission seems to make clear the Bush administration's ignorance toward the importance of clean air and our environment as a whole. Time after time, President Bush has chosen to side with wealthy, powerful interests (who, coincidentally, are now cutting him large re-election checks) over the environmental health of America. He has ignored the real threat of global warning while his "clear skies" dirties our air. \nThe news from the LCV and the EPA in recent days paints a dark picture for President Bush's ability to be a steward of our environment. If his past policies are not altered, the air and water we rely on to survive could become seriously at risk.
(06/12/03 12:43am)
This week, one of President Bush's closest advisors, Mitch Daniels, left Washington to come back home to Indiana. Daniels' return, after working more than two years in the White House, was for business, not pleasure.\nOn Monday, Mitch Daniels laid the initial groundwork for his campaign to be our next governor. Several Hoosier political observers have proclaimed that Daniels is now the man to beat in the election. I am certainly no political fortune teller, but the resounding support of President Bush that Daniels will receive certainly should not hurt his effort. \nBut, as such a heavy hitter -- Daniels was, depending upon who you ask, the President's closest and most influential economic adviser -- it is important to look at his work since he's had such an enormous amount of influence on the nation's budget and, indirectly, our economy.\nAs the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Daniels was responsible for developing and overseeing the President's economic and budgetary proposals to Congress. In this capacity, Daniels received a reputation as being eager to slash spending. That is, when agencies submitted funding requests to his office, Daniels was not scared of cutting pet programs and other funds. As governor, Daniels would have even greater power to determine funding levels for vital programs such as Medicaid and public education.\nHowever, until Daniels comes out with specific proposals, it would be unfair to presume what he would be willing to cut from Indiana's budget. I was glad to see that even some of his critics complimented Daniels for his budgetary fairness. In a June 9 Washington Post article, Sen. Charles Schumer, Dem.-NY, said, "We disagreed ideologically on the size of the pie … but he always wanted to divide the pie fairly."\nHopefully, Daniels, or whoever our next governor may be, will remember how much Hoosiers are helped by public education, public health programs and other slices of "the pie." But that is for a later column.\nStill, being a proud Democrat, I must have some problem with the conservative Daniels. And, indeed, I do. \nSince Mitch Daniels has taken the reigns at the OMB, the historical surpluses of the Clinton years have turned into a more than $300 billion federal deficit this year. Put simply, under Daniels' watch, we're spending $300 billion more than we're taking in. In light of such deficits, Daniels has pushed even more tax cuts that will help the wealthy in the short-run and hurt the middle class in the long-run by forcing us to pay interest on the money the government currently is borrowing.\nDaniels has already helped the federal budget surplus disappear, and I can't help but wonder what acts he'll have in store should he become governor. As products of a publicly funded institution, all of us should be wary (and vocally so) about the prospects of more cuts to higher education. Throughout the campaign, it is necessary that all students (Republican or Democrat; there will be primary contests for each party) make their voices heard.\nBut, at this early stage, those interested in politics must watch and soak in the moves of Daniels and others. I will keep an open mind on Mitch Daniels. In researching for this column, I found repeated references to how Daniels is a good and principled man (even Ralph Nader has spoken highly of Daniels' commitment to his principles). Such attributes are important, but as I look to Indiana's future in 2004 and beyond, I can't help but wonder about Daniels' fiscally irresponsible past.
(05/29/03 12:45am)
The United States has long been respected around the world. Such respect wasn't solely out of fear for our massive army, but also out of admiration for our democratic values and international reputation.\nNow more than ever, as the United States fights a nondescript network of terrorists that could hide in any nation, having the respect of the international community is essential. Unfortunately, at the same time that we need this cooperation, we are taking actions that alienate our allies across the globe.\nAfter Sept. 11, it became clear that international cooperation would be pivotal for our future security. To that effect, nearly every nation offered its support for our potential efforts to stop the global menace of terror. \nSadly, a year and a half after our global war began, we are failing to follow through on our initial efforts and are taking other actions strongly opposed by the international community. \nAfghanistan is a prime example. The United States helped native Afghan factions topple the Taliban government in the latter part of 2001. This action was the right thing to do, but the Bush administration's handling of postwar Afghanistan has left the country vulnerable of again becoming a terrorist safe-haven.\nSpeaking on NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden, D- Del., said "Afghanistan is about to collapse." While the capital, Kabul, has been secured by U.S. and international security forces, the rest of Afghanistan is largely lawless, with President Bush refusing to expand the U.S. presence in the countryside. In a May 20 speech, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R- Neb., confirmed in Afghanistan, "Warlords and those who may sympathize with al Qaeda extremists still control much of the countryside."\nMany in the international community and in Afghanistan itself have been pleading for the United States to make a greater commitment to securing the entire country, not just the capital. Indeed, we would be naive to think terrorists would avoid the countryside just because the capital is secure. In a May 26 article, the Baltimore Sun reported that Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan, told the Security Council that the issue of security "casts a long shadow over the whole peace process and, indeed, over the whole future of Afghanistan."\nBut, just as Afghanistan faces the risk of sliding back into the hands of oppressive warlords who might be friendly to terrorists, the United States turned much of its attention, resources and military power to Iraq. In order to do this, we ignored international concern about this precedent-setting preemptive action.\nNow, after the invasion, instability is arising in Iraq. Protests and frequent skirmishes are not uncommon, and there is increasing discontent among the populace with the American presence. Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, but a concerted effort is necessary to ensure the country's stability. To that end, much of the international community (including many who opposed the war) offered to be involved in the reconstruction effort, but the Bush administration has declined, remaining on its near-unilateralist approach in the region.\nBy failing to provide for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are leaving the door open for situations to take hold that are even more dangerous than before Sept. 11. Furthermore, by alienating the international community, we are losing our ability to gather intelligence and work with others on fighting terror.\nIn prosecuting this vital war on terror, it is essential that President Bush commit to rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he do so in a manner that respects -- not ignores -- the international community.
(05/21/03 10:55pm)
Three years ago, with a Democrat in the White House, the federal budget was balanced. Less than a year after President Bush took over, our budget surpluses were gone. The man who ran for election as a "fiscal conservative" made an economic proposal this year that called for borrowing $304 billion dollars to pay the nation's bills.\nThe centerpiece of the president's economic plan was a $726 billion tax cut. The House and Senate agreed that a tax cut should be no larger than $550 billion, so Bush and House Republicans are now advocating a plan of that size that would lower capital gains and dividend taxes, among others.\nThis year's prospective tax cut comes on top of the $1.3 billion cut enacted last year -- a tax cut that primarily favored those in the upper income brackets. The 2003 tax cut, similarly, follows the philosophy of trickle-down economics. That is, if you give money to the rich, they will invest, and eventually their prosperity will reach all Americans.\nThis theory failed in the past, and it is failing again. Bush's first tax cut at $1.3 billion was hardly a modest proposal. It simply failed to boost our economy. Instead, we have seen our unemployment rate soar to 6 percent. \nDespite this poor record for Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he continued this philosophy with his proposal this year. By targeting dividend and capital gains taxes, the 2003 tax cut will help out wealthy investors while providing meager relief to middle-class Americans. \nSuch a plan is not only unfair, but it is also economically unsound. If the president and Republicans in Congress wanted to jump-start our economy, they would give most of the tax cut to the people who will spend it quickly, those in the middle class who need discretionary income. Instead, they have chosen to help out the wealthy, who will be content with saving their money for the future.\nBut, at least our tax-cutting president is living up to his campaign promise of being a "fiscal conservative," right? Wrong. Republicans regularly run for office as "fiscal conservatives." It's a phrase you hear quite often around election time; who doesn't want to be a fiscal conservative?\nUnfortunately, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress are in no way fiscally conservative. Since Bush has been in office, he has continually failed to spend within his means. Again, this year, he proposed spending $300 billion more than the federal government took in -- that sure doesn't qualify as fiscally conservative in my book. And, not coincidentally, the president has frequently gone to Congress to request that the federal government can borrow more money. This allows the federal government to spend more while it is continually cutting taxes for the richest Americans.\nJust last week, The New York Times reported that the president asked Congress to raise our $6.4 trillion debt ceiling by almost a trillion more dollars. That's $6.4 trillion that you and I will have to pay interest on in the future. Thanks a lot, Mr. President.\nThe new Bush tax cut is just another gimmick to make the American people feel like Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are working hard for them. Instead of making tough decisions to provide for a balanced budget, George W. Bush has decided to cut taxes for the rich while expanding the federal debt to record levels. Fiscal conservatism, it seems, is dead.