Editorial: John Kerry, our choice for president

Friday, Oct. 22, 2004 | 7:17 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

October 23 - 24, 2004

Over the past several months John Kerry has emerged as the antidote to George W. Bush, a president whose first term in office has led to a divided nation and world. In three debates with the president and on the campaign trail, Kerry has spoken plainly about his plans for restoring reason to the White House. In evaluating Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, we can foresee an administration whose decisions would be based on thoughtful consideration of world affairs and a genuine concern for ordinary Americans.

Here in Nevada, we have Kerry's promise to bring his presidential powers full force against the dangerous federal plan to bury high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. President Bush, campaigning in Nevada in 2000, masked his true stance on Yucca Mountain by saying his decision would be based on "sound science." Instead, he pushed for Yucca Mountain almost from day one in the White House. In 2002, with hundreds of scientific questions unanswered, he signed the bill authorizing Yucca Mountain.

In contrast, Kerry has been vocal in his opposition. In the Senate, he voted against Bush's plan to send nuclear waste here. And he's told Nevadans that he will block funding for Yucca Mountain, and that his appointments to relevant departments, such as Energy, Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, will go only to those who share his view that the project should die. This is good news for the whole nation, which will be imperiled if Yucca Mountain opens and nuclear waste is transported daily for the next several decades on public roads and railways that are not safe for such deadly material.

Regarding the most important international and national issue, we are confident about Kerry's will and strength in dealing with the hostile world that has taken shape over the past four years. He has spoken loud and clear about the course he will take in dealing with terrorism. He says he will root out the real terrorists and either capture or kill them. We are impressed with Kerry's resolve in this area, which we cannot imagine being diluted or diverted as was the case with President Bush when he switched his focus to Iraq, a country that had posed no external threat but which is now a breeding ground for hate and terrorism. Kerry would bring this war to the victory that eludes President Bush. And by building alliances with world leaders to forge a real coalition against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, he would make the United States and the w orld much safer.

Kerry rightly criticizes Bush's homeland security policies. Bush was indecisive on whether to create the Homeland Security Department, and when he did, it came with hard-to-understand color-coded warnings, which Kerry accurately sized up as little more than "photo opportunities." The department is slow to award federal funds to local first responders and stands indefensible in the face of Kerry's charges that our borders, ports and chemical and nuclear plants are no more secure today than before 9/11.

In turning around the economy, Kerry would invest in ordinary Americans rather than in the wealthy, the top 1 percent of whom received $89 billion in tax cuts just last year. He would cut taxes for middle-class people, who would actually use the money for home improvements and other job-creating expenditures. This would do wonders, as would his plan to end incentives for companies to export American jobs overseas. Under Bush, the net loss in jobs stands at more than a million. His administration coyly cites job gains without mentioning that the gains are nowhere near enough to offset the number of people looking for work. Bush clings to a simplistic "trickle down" economic theory that leaves average and lower-income Americans bone dry. In contrast, Kerry's plan is rooted in the needs and dreams of regular people raising families.

Kerry is also strong on health care policy, which under the Bush administration has evolved into a boondoggle for insurance and drug companies but a disservice to the American public. The Lewin Group, a nonpartisan health care research group in Washington, estimates that on our present course, 49.5 million Americans will be without health insurance by 2006, an increase of about 5 million over the number of people who are now uninsured. The Lewin analysts said Bush's plan to deal with this crisis would reduce the number of uninsured by only 17 percent, while Kerry's plan would achieve a 51 percent reduction.

Kerry would establish a national trust for education, rather than inventing buzz words (No Child Left Behind) whose promises go unfulfilled. He would preserve, rather than exploit, the environment. Alternative sources would have a real place in his energy plan, which would be drafted in the open as opposed to Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings with oil and nuclear power executives.

We heartily endorse John Kerry. He would be a president who would restore America's respect in the world. There would be a positive resolution to the war in Iraq. Our country would be safer, as our focus on fighting terrorism would not waver. The economy would be more oriented toward ordinary Americans. And Nevada and the country would be far safer without Yucca Mountain.