|
Jewish World Review June 29, 2000 / 26 Sivan, 5760
Chris Matthews
Cut through the fog of detail and petulance and you
discover a stark difference between George W. Bush and
Albert Gore.
One leader would steer 21st-century America in the
direction of personal enterprise and self-reliance. The other
would grow, to use a Clintonesque word, the economic role
of government.
In both cases, the program the man pushes reflects the life
he has led.
Bush has spent his life as a Texan taking chances. He tried
first in the oil business; tried second and successfully in the
baseball business, and tried third, also successfully, as a
Texas politician. Except for the Air National Guard, he's
never been on a federal government payroll.
Gore has lived his life mostly in Washington. After
Vietnam he reported on politicians at the Nashville
Tennessean, then quickly became one of them, scaling the
constitutional ladder of House to Senate to vice presidency.
It was the same ladder that Richard Nixon climbed during
Gore's youth, the same that rival Jack Kennedy might have
taken had he won his improbable try for VP in '56.
Now in middle age, Bush and Gore are offering Americans
a future that celebrates their own separate careers. One
proposes a country where individuals are freed from
government control and taxation to make their marks and follow their dreams.
The other promises a government that educates us in youth, guards us by day and
night, comforts and guarantees our security in old age.
On Social Security, Bush wants to introduce a measure of private enterprise with
a bit of risk. Workers could choose to invest a portion of their payroll tax in
private investments.
Gore would keep the system basically as it is now. We get taxed while we work,
receive benefits when we retire. Lower-income workers would be offered a
second entitlement: three dollars of taxpayer money for every dollar they save
toward retirement. As their income rose, workers would get a smaller
government subsidy.
The two men's positions on Social Security reflect their life philosophies. Bush
would free payroll dollars for private investment. Gore would go the other
direction, creating a second government program that collects, transfers and
redistributes more tax dollars from current workers to low-income retirees.
Connect the dots and we notice that Bush wants a big tax cut. Gore needs to
keep taxes high to pay for such government benefits as free drugs for retirees
and that extra three dollars for every dollar someone saves.
On education, Bush backs vouchers to allow parents the subsidized choice to
enroll their children in parochial or other private schools. Gore would put all public
backing behind public schools alone.
On crime, Bush comes from the state that fights crime with capital punishment
and laws that let men and women carry concealed weapons. Gore may be the
most zealous gun controller ever to run for president. Again, one candidate likes
self-reliance and personal responsibility. The other pushes the power of
government to protect us.
On the environment, the choice is also clear. Bush seems comfortable with big
business. Gore agrees with Theodore Roosevelt: If anyone is going to protect this
country's bounty, it's not going to be the boys in the boardroom.
So, in addition to being the year of Kathy's and my 20th wedding anniversary —
we came back here where it all started to celebrate! — 2000 is also the year of a
true, dramatic presidential choice for the
06/26/00: Death joins the debate
|