Editorial: Gore best for nation, Nevada

Saturday, Oct. 21, 2000 | 3 a.m.

Voters can't complain that this presidential election is a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee. Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush offer profound differences on how they'd govern this nation. And on the federal issue most critical to residents of this state -- the continuing efforts to place nuclear waste in Nevada -- there is a stark contrast.

If there is an emerging theme in this presidential race, it is that Bush's plans would tend to benefit either the wealthy or powerful special interest groups. Gore's policies are more fair, ensuring that all Americans would continue to share in the fruits of this nation's robust economy.

Let's not forget that since President Clinton and Vice President Gore were elected in 1992, there has been a dramatic improvement in our economy -- and it's not just a booming stock market. For instance, in 1992 unemployment was 7.5 percent, but by 2000 it is just 4 percent, one of the lowest levels in three decades. In 1992 the federal budget had a $290.4 billion deficit, but tighter spending and a healthy economy have resulted in a steady reversal of ballooning deficits; it's estimated that there will be a $232 billion budget surplus this year. The administration's commitment to reining in federal spending has produced other benefits, too, which have resulted in lower interest rates for much of that period, making it more affordable for working men and women to buy cars and homes.

Gore's spending proposals are responsible, acknowledging the need to set aside part of the budget surplus to continue to pay off our national debt. Gore's tax cuts also are targeted to provide important aid, offering tax relief so people can afford a college education, save for retirement and help offset some of the costs for day care. In contrast, Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut proposal is lopsided, since the lion's share of the cuts would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Bush's cuts also are so huge that it casts serious doubt as to how committed he is to eliminating our national debt.

As if Bush's tax plan wasn't worrisome enough, there's this: The Republican presidential nominee wants to take $1 trillion out of the Social Security trust fund and give it to young adults to invest on their own. This is a risky scheme that not only would make the Social Security trust fund financially unstable, but it also would require benefit cuts elsewhere to pay for the loss of $1 trillion. Bush's plan would erode the Social Security compact, which has worked so well since its inception during the Great Depression, a guarantee that retirees will have a safety net.

Gore clearly outshines Bush on health care as well. Gore supports a bipartisan patient's bill of rights which, unfortunately, has been stymied by the GOP congressional leadership. Bush has yet to say whether he supports that legislation. Gore's plan to provide prescription drugs for seniors, which is opposed by the powerful pharmaceutical industry, is excellent and would cover more of the costs of drugs than Bush's plan that would rely on HMOs to provide this benefit.

Gore, meanwhile, has been active in helping the president fashion his foreign policy during the past eight years. Gore knows the issues and understands the need for the United States to be engaged in international affairs. Bush, though, hasn't shown that he is anywhere close to Gore's knowledge, or interest, of world affairs. The fact is the world is changing fast and we need a president who will be engaged in foreign policy.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is the issue of nuclear waste. The nuclear power industry and the GOP-controlled Congress have grown impatient with a plan to store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. So earlier this year Congress, by a wide margin, passed legislation that would have severely weakened health and safety standards that the government was using to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability. The net effect of the legislation would have guaranteed the burial of man's deadliest waste in Nevada.

Although 64 senators supported this terrible legislation, the Senate didn't have enough votes to override the president's opposition. Gore made it clear that he stood with Nevada on this issue, strongly supporting the president's veto in February. So where did Bush stand on the issue? He refused to say.

Bush still hasn't said if he would have vetoed the legislation that was all but written by the nuclear power industry. Of course, Bush's campaign has benefited handsomely from the financial support offered by the influential nuclear power industry, so his silence speaks for itself. If Gore isn't elected, then, the gravest threat to this state's health and safety will be one more step closer to reality.

Gore and Bush are honorable men, yet on issue after issue, Gore's policies are in the best interests of both our nation and Nevada. The vice president, through word and deed, has earned the trust necessary to lead this nation. The Sun endorses Al Gore's bid to be the next president of the United States.