President Bush's record shows need for change

President George W. Bush wants to make this election about the record and character of Senator John F. Kerry. Millions of dollars of advertising accuse Kerry of "flip flopping," and have attacked Kerry's distinguished military service. This election, in my opinion, is not about Kerry, but is a referendum on the record of Bush.

Foreign Policy — When the United Nations Security Council declined to support the American invasion of Iraq, President Bush declared, "We will go it alone!" The president's policy of unilateralism is reckless. Alliances are even more important today than they were during the cold war. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U. S. military has been reduced from about 3.6 to about 1.5 million troops. In Operation Desert Storm 500,000 troops liberated Kuwait; it was the Japanese (rather than the American taxpayer) who picked up much of the tab.

Bush's father declared that even 500,000 troops were not enough to occupy successfully a hostile Iraq. Today there are about 130,000 troops there, and the war is being financed largely by American taxpayers. American forces are stretched way too thin. This is evident by the deployment of the National Guard and the Reserves, as well as the "stop-loss orders" that forbid troops from leaving the military. About 40 percent of the troops in Iraq are from the National Guard and the Reserve.

Bush now justifies his war (after finally concluding there are no weapons of mass destruction) in terms of bringing democracy to the Middle East. That is a noble and worthy goal. Yet that justification is not credible because Bush has done absolutely nothing, he has not lifted a finger to pressure Saudi royal family, or the government of Kuwait to adopt democratic reforms.

Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are allies, but have non-democratic governments. Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian and brutal regime. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens and their fund came from Saudi Arabian sources. Why is democracy so important in Iraq, but not important in those authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that can be influenced peacefully?

President Bush's foreign policy failures is summarized in a Los Angeles Times editorial on Oct. 4, 2004: "The American military is stretched to the breaking point with more than 100,000 troops tied down in Iraq and more than $90 billion having been spent on behalf of a war that was based on a massive intelligence failure. The Israel-Palestinian peace process has been willfully abandoned by the Bush administration. North Korea and Iran are constructing nuclear weapons with impunity. Russia is reaching back to its czarist past as Vladimir V. Putin tightens his grip on power... Meanwhile, admiration for the U.S. has been replaced by loathing even in moderate Turkey. 59% of the population, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, believe that suicide bombings are legitimate in Iraq."

Domestic Policy — When Bush assumed the presidency, median family income was over $44,000. After four years of Bush's economic policies, median family income dropped to $43,318.

This is the lowest median family income for Americans since 1998. When Bush took office less than 12 percent of Americans were living in poverty. Today that number has increased to 12.5 percent, an increase of 4.3 million Americans. When Mr. Bush took office in 2001 about 14 percent of the population didn't have health insurance (a percentage far too great in a nation as wealthy as the United States). Today there are 5.2 million more Americans without health insurance. Bush is the only president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term in office. Bush's economic record is not entirely bleak. Multinational corporations, such as Chevron and Halliburton, have made extraordinary profits.

President Bush has cut income, corporate, capitol gains, and estate taxes which benefit the most wealthy Americans. Unfortunately, this administration lacks the fiscal discipline to cut spending to pay for those tax cuts. Under President Clinton, government spending grew at a modest rate of 4 percent each year. Spending has doubled by 8 percent each year Bush has been in office. The effect of tax cuts and increased spending has produced a massive deficit approaching $450 billion.

The Bush deficit is a tax shift from a wealthier, older generation to a less wealthy, younger generation. It is a shift of the tax burden from my generation to your generation and your children's generation. Many undergrads think the tax cuts will benefit them because they aspire to jobs with magnificent incomes. Students in 2004 need to understand that as the tax burden is shifted to them they will be unable to accumulate future wealth, buy homes or even have the necessary government services. The current student generation will be obligated to pay for President Bush's tax cuts, pay off the deficit and the cost of interest on that debt.

How successful will a Kerry administration be? No one can answer that question with any degree of certainty. No one can foresee future events. What is certain is that when economic policies are not working to benefit most Americans, and young Americans are dying in an unneeded and mismanaged foreign war, it is time to change administrations.

Jay Stevens is a political science professor at CSULB.