Introduction to Election Issues Explained

Civic-minded U.S. citizens cast their vote for president on November 2. HowStuffWorks compiled information for some of the top issues facing Americans in that election. In this feature, you'll find overviews, statistics, positions and voting records for four of the candidates in Election 2004: Michael Badnarik, President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, and Ralph Nader.

Click below to jump directly to a specific issue, or else just start here and work your way through each one to find out what each candidate stood for, what he promised, and what his record actually showed.

Election 2004

Abortion

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in American politics, not to mention American society. Opponents of abortion (who generally refer to themselves as "pro-life") usually base their beliefs on religious grounds and the "sanctity of life." Abortion opponents tend to be Republican. The "pro-choice" movement believes it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full term, and that the government has no business making such decisions for them. Pro-choice supporters tend to be Democrats.

The abortion debate has been crystallized by two controversies in recent years: RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill," and stem-cell research. RU-486, which causes a chemical abortion when taken with certain hormones in the first nine weeks of a pregnancy, was approved by the FDA in 2000, despite objections by many Republicans. It was not considered an outright victory for the pro-choice side, however, as many felt the FDA saddled the drug with limitations and unreasonable restrictions.

Stem cells are cells that have not yet differentiated into the specific kinds of cells that make up a human being. They can be found in bone marrow as well as human embryos, and could be crucial in discovering cures to several diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. The Republican "party line" is that an embryo is just as sacred a life as any other, even if it was developed in a lab dish -- therefore, experimenting on embryonic stem cells is immoral. The possibility of curing certain debilitating diseases has caused some Republicans to cross party lines and plead for increased stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan (whose husband, President Ronald Reagan, suffered from Alzheimer's disease) and pro-life Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (a Mormon) have come out in favor of embryonic stem-cell research.

Badnarik: Position and Record
As the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik conforms to the Libertarian view that the government should not intrude on the lives and decisions of its citizens. Badnarik has declared that abortions should always be legal, and that he would veto any legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. He concedes that it is a states' rights issue, and that each state should probably be able to decide for itself.

"I hope that there will come a time when technology will solve the problem," Badnarik told the League of Women Voters. "But until that happens, I believe abortion must remain safe and legal."

One solution Badnarik has proposed is to make the process of adopting a child easier. He feels this would provide another option for mothers who weren't sure if they wanted to carry out a pregnancy.

However, Badnarik isn't 100 percent in favor of abortion -- he simply feels the government shouldn't be involved in it in any way. He opposes government-funded abortions, as well as laws that require health-care plans to cover abortions.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush generally follows the Republican Party platform by opposing abortion, working to reduce abortions, and pushing for laws that restrict or ban abortions. He supports parental notification whenever a minor tries to get an abortion, as well as a waiting period before an abortion can be performed. When Bush began his run for president in 2000, he adopted a more moderate tone. At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush said, "I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life -- the life of the elderly and the sick, the life of the young, and the life of the unborn."

When asked about RU-486, Bush said he accepted the FDA's ruling that the drug should be approved, but he expressed concern that it would lead to more abortions, and wondered if it was truly safe for American women to use. However, during the 2000 campaign, he said, "The FDA's decision to approve the abortion pill RU-486 is wrong."

Regarding stem-cell research, Bush has supported research on adult cells (taken from bone marrow), but strongly opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

Record:

  • As governor of Texas, Bush worked to cut abortions by streamlining the adoption process and encouraging abstinence education. Once he moved into the White House, he cut funding to international aid groups that performed abortions.

  • Bush signed a partial birth abortion ban -- a ban that was recently overturned in the courts. The ban made performing the procedure punishable by up to two years in jail.

  • Bush set guidelines that only allow federal funding of stem-cell research on certain lines of embryonic cells that were harvested before the guidelines went into effect.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry opposes restrictions on abortion rights. While he has spoken out against the partial birth abortion ban, he has indicated possible support for such a ban if it included exceptions for women who were victims of rape or incest, or if the abortion would protect the health of the mother.

On his campaign Web site, Kerry has outlined his plan to keep pro-choice judges on the bench: "John Kerry will only nominate individuals to the federal bench whose records demonstrate a respect for the full range of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the right to choose."

In June 2004, Kerry and 57 other senators signed a letter to President Bush urging an expansion of embryonic stem-cell research. The letter expressed fears that current limitations on embryonic stem-cell research are diverting scientists from a crucial area of research.

Record:

  • 2004 - Voted no on a bill that would make it a crime to harm an unborn baby during a violent crime.
  • 2003 - Voted no on the partial birth abortion ban.
  • 2000 - Voted in favor of repealing a ban on privately funded abortions conducted on U.S. military bases overseas.
  • 1999 - Voted yes for congressional support of Roe vs. Wade.
  • 1999 - Voted no on late-term abortion ban.
  • 1998 - Voted no to override the president's veto of a late-term abortion ban.
  • 1997 - Voted no to ban research on stem cells taken from an embryo that came from an aborted fetus.
  • 1997 - Voted yes for an amendment that would provide federal funding in a child and teen health insurance bill that would cover the cost of abortions.
  • 1996 - Voted no to override the president's veto of a ban on late-term abortions.
  • 1996 - Voted yes to allow the District of Columbia to use non-federal funds to pay for abortions for poor women.
  • 1995 - Voted no to a partial birth abortion ban.
  • 1993 - Voted yes to allow the use of federal funds for abortions.
  • 1992 - Voted no to restrict research on fetal tissue.
  • 1991 - Voted yes to require parental consent when a minor gets an abortion at a federally funded clinic.

Nader: Position and Record
Nader has always come down firmly on the pro-choice side of the debate, supporting the approval of RU-486 and opposing any abortion bans.

However, in his efforts to paint himself as a viable alternative to what he perceives as a monolithic "Republicrat" party, he has downplayed fears that a Republican president could appoint enough pro-life judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that originally gave women the right to have an abortion. According to Nader, threats to overturn that decision by the Republicans are just for show, to appease the most conservative and religious wing of the Republican Party. Nader goes on to say that if it were overturned, then the decision "just reverts to the states."

Record:
Because Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on abortion.

Sources:

Capital Punishment

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy California Department of Corrections
In the United States, public support for the death penalty stands at about 65 percent, though that number drops to 50 percent when the option of life without parole is offered. Although positions on the death penalty can be loosely divided along party lines (Democrats oppose it, Republicans support it), there are several complicating factors. Voters with strong religious convictions, who tend to be Republicans, often oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. Few politicians are willing to absolutely oppose capital punishment, since such opposition is commonly construed by their opponents as being "soft on crime." As a result, even Democrats who oppose it tread very carefully around the issue.

Currently, 38 states, plus the federal government and the U.S. military, can legally execute prisoners. This puts the U.S. in opposition to the growing number of nations that have banned the death penalty, including all of Western Europe, Russia, and much of South America. In terms of numbers of prisoners executed, the top four countries in the world are China, Iran, the United States, and Vietnam.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Few of Badnarik's views on the death penalty have been made public since he was nominated by the Libertarian Party -- his more controversial opinions have been removed from his campaign Web site. However, at one time, Badnarik suggested that, "The best time to administer the death penalty is by the potential victim a few tenths of a second before the crime can be committed" [ref]. That is, citizens should be armed with guns and allowed to shoot criminals.

On the other hand, Badnarik has expressed opposition to death sentences handed out by the government. His stance on crime favors restitution to victims rather than punishment for the perpetrator. He feels that a life sentence is sufficient, provided the criminal actually spends his entire life in jail.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush's position is easy to infer from his term as governor of Texas. He presided over 152 executions as governor, which continued a trend of the south in general, and Texas in particular, leading the nation in executions. In fact, Texas and Virginia by themselves account for more than 87 percent of the executions in the United States since 1976.

Although Texas law prevents governors from commuting death sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so DNA evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In 2000, Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty cases]."

Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used because, according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's the only reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right," said Bush at a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."

Record:

  • 152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
  • Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for hate crimes
  • Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles
  • Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry opposes the death penalty, except for terrorists (political analysts have noted that it would be political suicide to even suggest that terrorists shouldn't be executed). He has indicated that, although he understands the human instinct to want revenge, governments should not kill people as part of the justice system. At a 2004 debate, he voiced fears that too many innocent people are on death row, and that the system is too flawed to trust with people's lives.

In terms of specific policy, Kerry would enact a moratorium on federal executions, pending the proper use of DNA evidence to make sure death row inmates are truly guilty. He has also indicated that Osama bin Laden, if caught, should be tried and executed in the United States.

Record

  • 2001 - Sponsored the Innocence Protection Act, which would authorize the use of DNA evidence in death penalty cases
  • 1996 - Voted no to limit death penalty appeals
  • 1994 - Voted no to reject racial discrimination arguments in death penalty appeals
  • 1993 - Voted no to kill an amendment prohibiting the death penalty for minors (in other words, opposed death penalty for juveniles)
  • 1991 - Voted no to reject racial discrimination arguments in death penalty appeals
  • 1991 - Voted no to limit death-row prisoners' ability to seek federal-court review of state-court sentences
  • 1991 - Voted yes to provide life imprisonment as an alternate to the death sentence in certain drug cases
  • 1988 - Voted no to a bill that would allow the use of the death penalty for drug traffickers who were convicted of murder or of ordering a murder

Nader: Position and Record
When asked about the death-penalty issue, Nader prefers to focus on underlying issues of crime and poverty. Like Kerry, he would enact a death penalty moratorium, and he feels that too many innocent people are sentenced to death. He also goes a step further, saying the death penalty is used against a disproportionate number of poor, black, and Hispanic inmates.

Nader feels that crime is not deterred by enforcement or harsh penalties; rather, a healthy economy, social programs such as "Gang Intervention Units," and education are the keys to cutting street crime.

Record:
Because he has never held a political office, Nader has no voting record on the death penalty.

Sources:

Employment

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue


USDA Photo by Dorothea Lange
Economic health has always been a major issue for American voters. The ability of an American to get a decent job with benefits and a salary that can support his or her family is the clearest barometer of the economy's health. With the economy trying to pull out of a slump caused in part by the 9-11 attacks, the collapse of dotcom businesses, and a variety of other factors, voters are focused on candidates' job plans.

The outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries is a serious problem. While factory jobs have been moving to countries with cheaper labor (like Mexico) for decades, the loss of tech jobs to countries on the other side of the world has brought the issue to the forefront of many Americans' minds.

Simply creating new job opportunities will not be enough to appease the American middle-class, however. The new jobs must pay close to the national average and offer the health and retirement benefits families need to survive.

While there are as many responses to economic problems as there are politicians, Republicans typically try to energize job growth by cutting taxes, hoping the extra money in the pockets of citizens will fuel consumer spending. Democrats are historically known for using taxpayer money to fund public works projects that create jobs and pump the tax money back into the economy.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Badnarik subscribes to the Libertarian viewpoint that government regulation and interference should be removed from virtually all aspects of American life. He blames poor economic conditions and a lack of quality jobs on excessive government regulations and tries to draw a direct connection between a reduction in government regulators in the 1980s and overall U.S. job growth in the same period. Badnarik has repeatedly promised to "downsize the government."

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush initiated broad tax cuts shortly after taking office. Although the cuts, combined with increased military spending due to the war in Iraq, have erased the federal budget surplus and led to a deficit, Bush is pushing for Congress to make the cuts permanent.

In 2003, Bush passed the Jobs and Growth Act, which was essentially a package of tax cuts. The deepest cuts (an average of $17,000 in tax savings) were reserved for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. The act also increased the child tax credit and the deduction for married couples and eliminated taxes on some stock dividends.

When it comes to putting welfare recipients back to work, Bush is in favor of:

  • making able-bodied recipients enroll in welfare-to-work programs
  • offering tax breaks to companies who provide welfare-to-work job opportunities
  • cutting benefits to people who have more children while on welfare
  • providing daycare and increased access to public transportation to welfare recipients

Bush has supported "flex time" laws that allow employees to take compensation time instead of overtime pay. Opponents of such laws fear businesses will pressure employees to take the comp time so they can save money by not paying overtime.

Record:

  • In 2003, Bush approved a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for those seeking jobs.
  • Bush passed tax cuts early in his term that returned $300 to $600 to lower- and middle-class Americans.
  • Bush passed another tax-cut package in 2003.
  • Bush increased the upper limit on expenses that small businesses can write off as tax-deductible from $25,000 to $100,000.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry wants to grow jobs in the United States by supporting the infrastructure that leads to job creation. "We need to increase our commitment to science in America, to venture capital, to the kinds of incentives that draw capital to the creation of jobs," said Kerry at a debate in 2003.

Kerry's proposed plan would:

  • provide a budget boost to the states in hopes of preventing education cuts and layoffs
  • offer tax cuts to corporations to increase manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
  • work to enforce international trade laws to stop other countries from undercutting American workers
  • push for a strong focus on science and math and fund educational and technological initiatives
  • offer tax credits and tuition help so more Americans can get a college education
  • maintain Bush's middle-class tax cuts
Record:
  • 2004 - Did not vote on 13-week unemployment benefits extension
  • 2001 - Voted no to repeal ergonomics rules in the workplace
  • 1999 - Voted no to increase the minimum wage
  • 1998 - Voted no to increase the minimum wage
  • 1998 - Voted yes on the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, which combined various job-training programs into large block grants, expanded use of technology in education, and gave state and local governments more flexibility in designing job programs
  • 1998 - Voted yes to add an amendment to the budget that would create a reserve fund to make childcare more affordable
  • 1997 - Voted no to limiting use of tax-payer funds in Teamster elections, and also voted no to a law that would require written notice on the part of a union before it could use members' dues to support political causes
  • 1996 - Voted yes to increase the minimum wage
  • 1991 - Voted yes to an amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act increasing the number of hours someone has to work to qualify for maternity or medical leave

Nader: Position and Record
Nader has long been a proponent for a "living wage," that is, a minimum wage that someone working full-time could support a family on (several studies have shown that even in cities where housing costs are low, people are forced to work multiple jobs to survive on minimum wage). As such, he would immediately raise the minimum wage, noting that today's minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is about 25 percent lower than it was 30 years ago.

Nader is also a fierce supporter of workers' rights in general (he has proposed a Workers' Bill of Rights), and he specifically supports unions. He wants to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which makes it difficult for workers to form unions. Nader wants cheaper health care and access to public transportation to make working easier for low-income Americans.

To create jobs, Nader would invest in public works and infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges, make education more affordable, and require fair international trade agreements that prevent corporations from moving jobs offshore for cheaper labor. He also wants to limit salaries and perks for upper-level corporate executives.

Record:
Because Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on jobs and the economy.

Sources:

Federal Deficit

by Lee Ann Obringer
October 2004

The Issue


The federal deficit is the difference between what the government takes in from taxes and other revenues in a single year and the amount of money the government spends. The national debt is the total amount of money that the government owes, which comes from adding the up the deficits and budget surpluses (if any) for the past 200 or more years.

To explain it with a personal example, if each month you spend $500 more than you earn, then each month you have a deficit of $500 and have to borrow money to pay it off. If this keeps up for a year, at the end of the year your debt is $6,000, and the amount you've borrowed to pay off that debt has grown along with it. Unless you earn enough to pay off the loan, eventually it takes all of your money just to pay the loan's interest, and you have to file bankruptcy.

Every year since 1969, the U.S. Congress has spent more than it has taken in, meaning the Treasury has had to borrow money. Currently, the federal debt totals approximately $7.3 trillion. This number isn't really comprehensible to most people, so let's try to put it in perspective. One way to do that is to just type it out rather than spell it -- $7,300,000,000,000. Given a population of 294 million in the U.S., it would take a payment of $24,830 by every individual to retire this debt. If we instead asked only the residents of Virginia (population a little over 7.3 million) to pay it off, each person would have to fork over one million dollars.

At the moment, however, the U.S. is moving in the opposite direction. Current projections for the government fiscal year (FY) 2004 (October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004) are that the national debt will increase by approximately $430 billion. That figure would be the highest on record, topping the deficit of $375 billion in FY '03. A significant contributor to the deficits in both years is the interest the government pays on this debt: approximately $318 billion in FY '03, and likely more than $360 billion in FY '04. The entire FY '04 budgets for NASA and the Departments of Interior, Energy, Justice, Homeland Security, Housing & Urban Affairs, Transportation, Labor, Education, and Agriculture together total $378 billion, about the same as the interest payment on the national debt.

In theory, this should put a significant damper on spending by the federal government, but in practice it has not. There are varying opinions as to why that is, and as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. But, one thing on which everyone agrees is that it obviously cannot go on forever. At some point, the debt has to be paid down, or the credit rating of the federal government will deteriorate so much that no one will buy savings bonds, Treasury bills, etc., which is one way the government gets the money to pay off debt.

At the moment, there is also growing concern in some quarters about how much of this debt is being purchased by foreign governments, and whether having other nations as our creditors is a dangerous thing.

According the Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, "... the federal budget deficit will pose serious long-term fiscal difficulties unless it is addressed soon."

Badnarik: Position and Record
by Ed Grabianowski
October 2004

Badnarik strongly opposes deficit spending. He supports a constitutional amendment that would force Congress to balance the budget each year; but failing that, he thinks the president needs to veto any budget that involves deficit spending. If he were elected president, he would do just that.

Badnarik's other solution is to return the American dollar to a gold or silver standard. Although doing so is probably not possible, and most economists would say the results would be disastrous, Badnarik thinks it would prevent Congress from creating "money out of thin air."

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record

  • Bush's proposed budget drops the ratio of total federal spending to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 16 percent, meaning that the federal budget would be 16 percent of the nation's GDP.
  • Bush's budget plan also seeks to pay off $2 trillion of the national debt over the next 10 years.
Record
During George Bush's presidency, the federal budget deficit hit a record high. According to the Office of Management and Budget, his $2.4 trillion budget for the next fiscal year (starting in October 2004) will leave the government $521 billion in the red.

According to FactCheck.org, discretionary spending has risen over the past three years by 36 percent. While 20 percent of the increase was due to military spending and homeland security, that still leaves a 16 percent increase in funding for other discretionary programs. This spending has increased twice as fast as it did under Clinton.

Kerry: Position and Record
John Kerry says he will cut the deficit by 50 percent during his first four years in office, while also lowering taxes for 98 percent of Americans. He says he will not propose new spending plans without also having determined how we'll be paying for them -- the "pay as you go" budget process. To fund health care and education plans that are estimated to cost $853 billion over a 10-year period, Kerry plans to:

  • Restore the top two federal income tax rates that were in effect under President Clinton
  • Restore tax rates on capital gains and dividends on annual incomes of over $200,000
  • Restore the federal estate tax, but add higher exemptions of $2 million for an individual and $10 million for a family-owned business or farm
Record
In 1985, Kerry was an early supporter of what is now the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment, which was designed to cut chronic federal deficits by setting spending levels and enforcing mandatory across-the-board cuts when necessary.

Other senate voting records include:

  • Kerry voted against $1 trillion in tax cuts, including the repeal of the estate tax during the 107th Congress in 2001-2002, and voted for authorizing President Bush to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

  • In 2000, Kerry voted no on an amendment to increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over five years. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion.

  • In 1997, Kerry voted no on the GOP budget, which would cut spending and taxes.

  • Also in 1997, Kerry voted no on the balanced-budget constitutional amendment, which required a balanced budget.

Nader: Position and Record
Nader states that the priorities of the federal budget need to be shifted to areas like infrastructure, transit and public works, schools, clinics, libraries, forests, parks, sustainable energy and pollution controls. He has set forth no specific plan regarding spending or reducing the federal deficit.

Record
Because Ralph Nader has never held a public office, he has no political record regarding the federal deficit.

Sources:

Global Warming

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy NOAA
Environmental issues often come down to a simple equation, with money on one side and environmental health on the other. The issue of global warming, in which gasses emitted by factories and cars trap heat in the earth's atmosphere, is no different. It costs money to fit factories with devices that reduce emissions, which could cause corporations to lay off workers. Forcing the auto industry to make more efficient vehicles that emit less greenhouse gas could reduce sales. Stricter standards could even drive fuel prices even higher.

To make things more complicated, there is an ongoing debate about how severe the effects of global warming are, or whether global warming even exists. The general scientific consensus is that it does exist, and world leaders felt it was enough of a problem to meet in Kyoto in 1997 and agree to a 33 percent reduction in the output of greenhouse gasses. There's enough room for disagreement, however, that one U.S. senator actually called global warming a hoax.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Badnarik has not expressed specific views on environmental policies.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush has attempted to downplay the severity of global warming, and often pits environmental issues against economic factors. In 2001, the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto agreement, saying, "For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers." Bush also disagreed with Kyoto exemptions provided for developing countries like China.

Although Bush has supported environmental efforts in speeches, he is generally considered friendly to economic interests in cases where business conflicts with the environment. He has supported voluntary environmental guidelines, rather than mandatory controls.

Record:
Bush rejected the Kyoto agreement in 2001. He also supported weaker enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In his 2000 campaign, Bush promised to regulate CO2 emission, but in 2001 he decided not to support the regulation of CO2 from power plants. In the 2000 debates, Bush disputed the severity of global warming.

In 2003, Bush announced a $1.2 billion initiative to fund the development of hydrogen fuel technologies. He declared that U.S. greenhouse emissions would be reduced by 18 percent within 10 years.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry has established himself as the antithesis of Bush when it comes to global warming. He disputes the "environment versus economy" adage -- on his campaign Web site, he slams the Bush administration's "outdated, old-economy notions that our environment must be sacrificed in the name of short-term profit." In fact, he feels that the U.S.'s absence from ongoing international discussions on how to reduce emissions is actually hurting the U.S. economy.

If elected, Kerry plans to "reinsert" the U.S. into international environmental treaties, and he supports emissions trading. Under an emissions trading plan, a factory would have a set quota of "free" emissions. To emit greenhouse gases above that amount, they would have to purchase additional emitting quota from other companies. It is hoped that this would make reducing emissions financially attractive to a variety of industries.

Record:

  • 2003 - Voted yes to a law encouraging the production of hydrogen-powered vehicles
  • 2002 - Voted yes to the Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act, which encouraged the use of alternative fuels and new auto emission standards
  • 2001 - Voted no to the appointment of Gale Norton (known to oppose environmental regulations) as secretary of the interior
  • 1996 - Voted yes to increase funding for various environmental programs, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • 1993 - Voted yes to create a Department of Environment and a Presidential Commission on Improving Environmental Protection

Nader: Position and Record
Although Nader dismisses the Kyoto Protocol as being too "watered-down" to make a big difference, he still wants the U.S. to ratify the agreement and begin work on reducing emissions. He has specifically called for:

  • Reducing auto emissions, and holding SUVs to the same environmental standards as cars
  • Increasing the use of alternative fuels, and therefore reducing use of fossil fuels
  • Eliminating subsidies of fossil fuel development

Record:
Because Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on global warming.

Sources:

Gun Control

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy MorgueFile
On one level, the gun control issue is fairly simple -- no one wants criminals to have guns, and no one wants innocent people to be killed with guns. When it comes to determining how exactly we control guns, politicians (and American citizens) can differ sharply.

At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian view, which opposes virtually any form of gun control. Gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), also oppose most gun controls, citing the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a guarantee that all Americans have the right to own and wield firearms: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

For the 2004 election, Republicans seem to have taken a more moderate stance on the issue, vowing to take guns out of the hands of criminals but protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Democrats generally favor stricter controls. Focusing the issue is the pending renewal of the 1994 ban on assault weapons. The controversial ban will expire in the fall of 2004, just months before the election.

Another element of gun control is the business issue. Some states and municipalities have sued gun manufacturers, holding them liable for deaths and injuries caused by their products. Republicans have pushed for a law that would shield gun manufacturers from such lawsuits.

Badnarik: Position and Record
This is an issue Badnarik feels very strongly about, and he is wholeheartedly in favor of citizens owning guns. The gun-control position paper on his campaign Web site is titled, "Gun Control Means Being Able To Hit Your Target." It starts out with this exclamation: "Don't even THINK about taking my guns!"

Badnarik feels that widespread gun ownership cuts down on crime, and that the right to own guns is absolutely guaranteed, without exceptions, limitations or qualifications, by the Second Amendment. As president, he would repeal all gun-control laws, including any that require gun registration.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush has said that, although he will not push for gun control laws, he would sign a renewal of the assault weapons ban if it made it through Congress. This is indicative of Bush's move toward more moderate policies on gun control since he was governor of Texas: In 1999, he opposed child safety locks and approved the carrying of concealed weapons in Texas, and he also signed a "gun manufacturer lawsuit preemption" law. Bush spoke out against waiting periods for handgun purchases, as well.

One of Bush's primary messages on gun control is that we already have gun control laws -- we just need to enforce them strictly. At a 1999 GOP debate, Bush said, "We need to send a signal to people, don't be illegally selling guns and don't be illegally using guns. The best accountability for somebody who breaks the law with a gun is called jail, certain jail."

Since taking office as president, Bush has favored a ban on automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, and has changed his mind when it comes to safety locks. In fact, in 2000, he pledged to offer federal matching funds to help states pay for the locks. However, he has carefully maintained his support for gun ownership rights when it comes to hunting and home defense. He continues to oppose gun registration and waiting periods, and would sign federal legislation shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

Record:
As governor of Texas:

  • Bush signed legislation prohibiting the carrying of a weapon within 300 yards of a school, and making it a crime to allow children access to firearms.
  • He did not support a Texas law that would have extended background checks to gun shows.
  • He signed a law shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits.
  • He signed a law requiring detention of any juvenile carrying a firearm illegally, or using one to commit a crime.

As president:

  • Bush enacted Project Sentry, which enforced juvenile gun laws and imposed a lifetime ban of gun ownership for juvenile offenders.
  • He pledged $325 million in federal matching funds so states could provide free safety locks to gun owners.

Kerry: Position and Record
On his campaign Web site, Kerry is described as "a gun owner and hunter." While supporting Americans' right to own weapons, he emphasizes the responsibilities that come with that right. Kerry supports strict enforcement of existing gun laws, and wants to close loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns at gun shows without undergoing background checks.

While some Democrats have tried to court the NRA and get their endorsement, Kerry has rejected any association with the gun rights organization. He supports renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for gun purchases.

Record:

  • 2004 - Voted no on a law shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits
  • 2000 - Voted yes on an amendment that would bar gun manufacturers from being released from their debts during bankruptcy due to lawsuits
  • 1999 - Voted yes to require background checks at gun shows
  • 1999 - Voted no for stricter penalties for drug and gun violations
  • 1998 - Voted no to maintain a law that allowed guns to be sold without trigger locks
  • 1996 - Voted no on a motion to table an amendment that would make it a crime to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school (in other words, he supported the amendment)
  • 1993 - Voted yes on the Brady Bill
  • 1993 - Voted no to kill an amendment that would ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons (in other words, he supported the ban)
  • 1991 - Voted yes on a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns

Nader: Position and Record
Gun control has not been a major part of Nader's political agenda. He is generally in favor of gun control, but sees the need for a balance between control and gun rights. Nader favors the Brady Bill, trigger locks, strict enforcement of existing gun laws, and the banning of certain weapons.

Record:
Since he has never held a political office, Nader does not have a voting record on the issue of gun control.

Sources:

Homeland Security

by Kevin Bonsor
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy U.S. AirForce
America's sense of security and perceived invincibility was shattered the morning of September 11, 2001, when four jetliners were hijacked and crashed, three into national landmarks. When an enemy invades your home, whether it is your house or the country in which you live, the natural response is to reassess the security measures in place and seek ways to improve.

Following the tragic events of September 2001, the United States government took stock of its homeland security. The president and Congress acted quickly, passing laws to restrict entry and exit to the country and unifying 22 government agencies to create a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

Let's examine the events of September 11, 2001, the laws recently created to address homeland security in the United States, the reasons for the development of the Department of Homeland Security and how each candidate plans to secure the American homeland.

September 11, 2001 The national agenda, political and social, was changed by the terrorist attacks carried out on September 11, 2001. Many Americans wanted answers for how the American government failed to anticipate and prevent this attack.

In July 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (also known as the 9/11 commission) published its final report. The commission found that Ramzi Yousef, the same terrorist who coordinated an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, planned to blow up a dozen airliners in 1995 as they flew over the Pacific Ocean. Yousef's plan was never carried out, but it showed that terrorists were interested in attacking airliners. The commission declared that several more attacks and attempted attacks should have been enough warning for the U.S. government:

  • June 1996: A truck bomb explodes outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dahran, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Hezbollah, backed by Iran, carried about this attack. Nineteen U.S. military personnel were killed, and hundreds were wounded.
  • August 1998: Al Qaeda coordinates truck bombings on U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands.
  • December 1999: U.S. customs agents arrest Ahmad Ressam at the U.S.-Canadian border for attempting to smuggle explosives into the country with the intent to attack the Los Angeles International Airport.
  • October 2000: Al Qaeda bombs the destroyer, USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
A pattern had been set, and America had clear warning that Islamic extremists were set on killing Americans and attacking American interests. By 2001, al Qaeda had established itself as a well-funded, organized terrorist group that was capable of attacking secure American targets.

We know now that two al Qaeda operatives entered the United States as early as January 2000, and those operatives were part of a "plane operation" planned by al Qaeda. These two operatives met up with a group of Muslims in San Diego, and lived there under their true names.

By the summer of 2000, three more al Qaeda operatives arrived on the East Coast and had begun pilot training. An additional two al Qaeda members began pilot training in Arizona in early 2001. During the first half of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received numerous warnings that al Qaeda was planning "something very, very, very big," according to one report.

On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers walked through airport security checkpoints. Not a single terrorist was detained. They took control of four jetliners using box cutters. The 9/11 commission found the following failings on the part of the U.S. government:

  • Two Hijackers were not watch-listed even after they were spotted in Bangkok.
  • Information regarding one hijacker's link to the Cole attack was not shared.
  • Steps were not taken to find two hijackers that were in the United States as early as January 2000.
  • False statements on visa applications by the hijackers were not discovered.
  • Manipulation of passports was not recognized.
  • No-fly lists were not expanded to include names from terrorist watch lists.
  • Aircraft cockpit doors were not hardened to prepare for possible suicide hijackings.

Restructuring National Security
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the personnel of many government agencies rushed to help, but confusion, miscommunication and bureaucracy prevented people from getting the help they needed. Following the problems of that day, President George W. Bush established the Office of Homeland Security on September 20, appointing Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge as the director.

By November 2002, 14 months after the terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and President Bush signed the law to create the Department of Homeland Security, the fifteenth cabinet-level department. This new department brought together 180,000 employees from the 22 government agencies, including the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service, The Transportation Security Administration, and most of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security represents the largest U.S. government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 to coordinate military activities.

According to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the primary mission of the Homeland Security Department is to:

  • Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States
  • Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism
  • Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks

The Patriot Act and Other Homeland Security Laws
Within a month of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress and the president began passing homeland security laws, including:

  • Patriot Act (October 2001) - Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act - Anti-terrorism legislation provides federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communications. It creates new crimes, penalties and procedures for use against domestic and international terrorism.

    Provisions include authorization of trap-and-trace devices for e-mail as well as telephone conversations, treats voicemail like e-mail in that it is not a conversation but a written record, and increases rewards for information in terrorism cases.

    This act is controversial in that some believe it grants overly broad powers to the federal government and damages civil liberties. Some of the more controversial components of the bill are due to expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress votes to renew them.

  • Aviation and Transportation Security Act (November 2001) - This created a Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation that is responsible for transportation security, including aviation. It also created a uniform, consistent security system at our nation's airports.

  • Bio-terrorism Preparedness Act of 2001 (December 2001) - This addressed gaps in our nation's biodefense and surveillance system and our public health infrastructure. It provided $640 million to produce and stockpile smallpox vaccines, more money for the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, and $1.6 billion for hospital preparedness and assessments of the vulnerability of local water systems.

  • Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 (April 2002) - This was designed to strengthen the border protection for the United States. It increases the number of INS investigators and provides for more interagency sharing of information related to alien admissibility and deportation. It also requires that visas, issued to aliens by the United States, be machine-readable and tamper-resistant and include a standard biometric identifier.

The rules have changed in post-9/11 America -- laws have changed, and the once overriding sense of security has changed. For that reason, homeland security is a major issue in the 2004 election.

Badnarik: Position and Record
by Ed Grabianowski
October 2004

Badnarik thinks the security of the United States should be focused on defending our borders, not sending troops far away. As he puts it on his campaign Web site, "As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations." He points out that American interference with other nations (both military and political) is a direct cause of the hatred many nations feel towards the United States and its citizens, and he believes that this drives people to join extremist terrorist groups, which actually harms homeland security. Badnarik would bring U.S. troops "home where they belong."

In a position paper posted on his Web site, Badnarik also ties homeland security to immigration. He feels that border security would be improved by easing immigration rules for legitimate immigrants. Then, anyone who tried to enter illegally would be treated as an invader and dealt with by the military.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Not since America was attacked in 1941 at Pearl Harbor has a U.S. president had to respond to an attack on the country, as did George W. Bush after 9/11. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush has been a supporter of the Patriot Act and supports extending all provisions of the act to allow law enforcement greater privileges in terror investigations. President Bush also proposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was established in 2002.

By attacking Iraq, President Bush began the doctrine of pre-emptive war, a decision that was intended to put America on the offensive in protecting the homeland. The Bush Administration attacked the Afghanistan government that was linked to al Qaeda for much the same reason.

Record

  • 2003 - Created "Ready campaign" and Ready.Gov
  • 2003 - Initiated reorganization of homeland defense
  • 2003 - Increased security of critical infrastructure
  • 2001 - Supported Patriot Act
  • 2000 - Allocated $1 billion more for military salary, $20 billion more for research and development of new weapons

Kerry: Position and Record
Democratic candidate John Kerry's position is not far distinguished from that of President Bush's position. The main difference is their view of the Patriot Act. Whereas President Bush would renew the Patriot Act in full, John Kerry would now favor letting the act expire to protect individual freedoms, despite having originally voted for the act.

Kerry's plan for homeland security calls for a national Defend America initiative that would make the National Guard's central mission homeland security. He would create a new community defense service comprised of thousands of volunteers to assist their communities in the event of an attack. This service would be similar to the Civil Defense Program that existed in World War II.

Additionally, Kerry has announced plans for a First Defenders initiative to ensure local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians are equipped and ready to respond to an attack. Further, Kerry would equip firefighters and police with the equipment they need to communicate with each other, which was a problem during the response to the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Other ideas Kerry has proposed include reforming domestic intelligence to simplify the organizations, establishing a national Homeland Health initiative, improving port security, securing bridges and tunnels and protecting private infrastructure.

Record:

  • 2004 - Voted yes on an amendment to reallocate for ground-based midcourse interceptors to homeland defense and combating terrorism.
  • 2003 - Voted yes to raise the 2003 caps by $3.5 billion for homeland security funding through a Domestic Defense Fund at the Homeland Security's Office
  • 2003 - Voted yes to restore national security funding
  • 2003 - Voted yes to make additional funds available for certain homeland security needs
  • 2003 - Voted yes to provide immediate assistance to meet pressing homeland security needs by providing funding in 2003 for first responders, port security, bioterrorism preparedness and prevention, border security and transit security, the FBI

Nader: Position and Record
Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate, believes that laws passed since September 11, 2001, in response to terrorism are eroding America's civil liberties and due process of law. Nader wants to repeal the Patriot Act entirely and broaden civil liberties.

Record:
Because Ralph Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on homeland security.

Sources:

Immigration

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy Dept. of Homeland Security
People immigrate to the Unites States, both legally and illegally, from all over the world. However, because of their proximity to the southern U.S. border, as well as a poor economy in their home country, the vast majority of immigrants are Mexican. As a result, the immigration issue is a complicated blend of agriculture, labor, human rights, and Latino issues.

Many lower- and middle-class, blue-collar workers oppose immigration because Mexican workers can either work below minimum wage (if they are illegal immigrants), or flood the job market and drive wages down (if they are legal immigrants). Other opposition comes from groups who feel that the tax dollars of Americans shouldn't be spent providing welfare, education, and other services to illegal immigrants (or even to legal immigrants).

Immigrants are crucial to U.S. farmers, many of whom have a difficult time finding American workers to do low-paying, seasonal farm work. The strongest support for immigrant rights usually comes from Hispanic and Latino groups. Politicians covet the huge voting blocks represented by these groups, so they walk a fine line between supporting immigrant rights and alienating American workers.

Badnarik: Position and Record
While Badnarik wants to make immigration easier for law-abiding immigrants who want to work and live in the United States, he also wants to get rid of incentives such as welfare that attract many immigrants. He feels that anyone who wants to come to a border crossing and submit to a background check to make sure he or she is not a criminal or terrorist should be allowed to enter; but each person should then be expected to make his or her own way and not be "parasites who come here to live on government largesse."

Badnarik also wants the civil liberties of law-abiding immigrants restored. He feels that many have been unfairly and illegally detained by the government without a trial or even the chance to speak to a lawyer.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush's stand on immigration is surprisingly liberal, probably due in part to his experience as governor of Texas (which has a very strong Latino population and culture), and his realization that the support of Hispanic voters is crucial for his reelection bid. Being immigrant-friendly is perfectly in line with his usual business-friendly policies, since big businesses rely on that huge pool of cheap immigrant labor.

The most important immigration program Bush has announced is his "temporary worker" initiative. Under this plan, undocumented (illegal) immigrants would be granted the right to legally hold jobs for six to eight years, as long as they maintain those jobs. This would not automatically give them citizenship. Many illegal immigrants fear deportation if they register for the program, and are wary of paying taxes and undergoing background checks. Critics also say the program favors illegal, unskilled workers, while skilled workers have a very difficult time getting employer-sponsored work visas through legal channels.

Prior to the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration followed a policy intended to make it easier for immigrants to obtain Green Cards and get into the country. Since then, "risk categories," strict enforcement, and deportation of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants has become the mandate for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

Record:

  • In 2000, Bush appointed James Ziglar to head of the INS. Ziglar brought libertarian views to the INS, which basically amounted to a very open immigration policy.

  • Early in his administration, Bush directed additional funds to the INS to expedite citizenship applications.

  • Ziglar resigned from his INS position in the wake of 9-11. Since then, the INS has become part of the Department of Homeland Security. The Bush administration has launched a program to track those who enter the country on student visas.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry has come out in support of restoring benefits like welfare and health care to legal immigrants. Many of those benefits were cut by 1996 welfare reforms. He also wants non-U.S. citizens who serve in the U.S. military to receive expedited citizenship. At a 2003 debate, Kerry indicated that anyone who has worked and lived in the U.S. for five or six years and has no criminal record should be granted citizenship. However, Kerry left some Latino voters apprehensive when he recently said he did not support drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants.

Kerry's immigration reform plans include "paths to citizenship," as well as reunification of families separated by immigration laws. Like Bush, he has promised to make the borders safe and secure.

Record:

  • 2000 - Voted yes to increase the number of work visas for high-tech foreign workers
  • 1998 - Voted no to create a registry of foreign workers who want to do farm work, and to allow more farm workers into the U.S.
  • 1998 - Voted no to increase the number of work visas for high-tech foreign workers
  • 1997 - Voted yes to allow Central American refugees who have lived in the U.S. for at least seven years and are of "good moral character" to avoid deportation
  • 1997 - Voted yes to extend Supplemental Security Income to legal immigrants for an extra month

Nader: Position and Record
Nader outlined his immigration stance very succinctly in a 2000 interview with the Fresno Bee. As is typical of Nader, he feels that immigration is a symptom of other problems, and the key to a successful immigration policy lies in dealing with those core problems.

    The first stage for our immigration policy is stop supporting oligarchs, dictatorships, authoritarian regimes that drive people to leave their native lands out of economic desperation or political repression. Lots of people from Mexico and Central America would now be in those countries, not in this country, if they had a decent chance in a democratic society to have an adequate standard of living. We cannot have open borders. That's a totally absurd proposition. It would depress wages here enormously, and tens of millions of people from all levels, including scientists and workers, would be pouring into this country. One way is to provide work permits for people who come in and do work for short periods of time that Americans don't want to do instead of criminalizing the border.

Record:
Because Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on immigration.

Sources:

Improving Schools

by Lee Ann Obringer
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy NASA
According to a report titled "Where We Are Now," developed by Public Agenda, most Americans today (students included) believe that schools aren't pushing students to their maximum potential. Support for higher standards in schools remains high, even if it means holding students back or requiring attendance to summer school. Today, a large number of students are promoted to the next grade even though they lack the skills necessary to learn there. This sort of "social" promotion is harmful to kids and the overall school system.

The push for more standardized testing is strong from both parents and educators. However, there is also the argument that standardized testing is overly emphasized in schools, with teachers teaching based on the standardized test rather than the usual curriculum, or what they say students should be learning. Still, teachers agree that the benefits of testing, such as identifying students who need additional help, and the fact that students work harder when they know they will be tested, are strong as well. And many parents rely on test scores to find out whether their schools are doing a good job.

Poor student behavior and lack of parental support are two of the problems most frequently cited by teachers. Almost half of teachers spend more time trying to maintain order in the classroom than they do actually teaching. Parents agree: Only half say they feel they have successfully taught their children to always do their best. Over half of teachers say that more parental involvement in their child's education would increase their child's chances of doing well in school.

Parents expect students to graduate with strong basic skills in reading, math, and writing. But they also expect them to be prepared for college, which requires higher learning skills. Only about half of college professors believe that public schools are preparing students adequately for higher education. The most lacking areas are in writing clearly, grammar, and spelling, as well as basic math skills.

School administrators overwhelmingly agree that if they were given more autonomy in making decisions for their school, leadership at their schools would improve. They should be able to reward exceptional teachers and get rid of ineffective ones. Instead, they spend too much time and effort on politics and bureaucracy.

The major issues are: education spending, the question of school accountability, and providing school choice.

Badnarik: Position and Record
by Ed Grabianowski
October 2004

The Libertarian solution to failing public schools is to privatize them. Badnarik thinks the government should have no involvement with education whatsoever. In a 2004 interview with the Augusta Free Press, he said, "I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it -- forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring -- I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education."

Badnarik wants to place decisions regarding where, when, and for how long students attend school, as well as who teaches them and what will be taught, into the hands of parents and educators. He feels that private schools are more efficient, and that simply putting more tax money into public schools won't solve the problem.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was enacted to ensure that every child got the opportunity to have a good education. NCLB addresses many of the concerns listed above and is designed to:

  • Help parents prepare their children for learning
  • Give parents objective data on how their child is doing academically
  • Give parents a detailed report card on how their child's school is doing in relation to other schools
  • Allow parents to transfer their child to a better school or get additional tutoring if their current school is consistently low-performing
  • Give teachers hard data through annual standardized tests that will point out each child's strengths and weaknesses so they can adequately plan their lessons to meet specific needs
  • Ensure that teachers are highly qualified
  • Increase resources for schools
  • Give principals and administrators more flexibility and control in their schools and fewer requirements for forms and red tape
  • Put more emphasis on teaching techniques that have been clearly demonstrated to work
In addition to NCLB, Bush also proposes the following:
  • put $1 billion into a new Secondary and Technical Education program that provides the traditional vocational education with added emphasis on academic achievement

  • expand opportunities for math and science education in colleges and universities by establishing a new public-private partnership to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science

  • include 12th graders in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to ensure they are prepared for higher education and to identify areas where schools are not meeting the needs of students

Record:

  • Standards and Accountability: Since President Bush signed NCLB into law, every state has developed a plan to ensure reading and math proficiency and to begin to close the achievement gap between students of different socio-economic backgrounds.

  • Funding: President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 49 percent increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001. (This funding under the NCLB Act has been $6 billion short of what was proposed.)

  • Reading First and Early Reading First: President Bush proposed and signed into law the Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives to ensue that every child can read by the third grade.

  • Options Available for Parents: Using tutoring money provided under NCLB, low-income parents of children in schools that have been identified as needing improvement can access supplemental service providers approved by the states.

  • Providing Parents with School Choice: A school choice program was included in the FY 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill for approximately 1,700 low-income children in the District of Columbia to attend the school of their choice.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry has a three-part plan to improve the nation's schools. First, he proposes a new National Education Trust Fund that guarantees the federal government will meet its obligation to fully fund education.

Second, Kerry supports No Child Left Behind but with the following changes:

  • Schools will be judged on more than just test scores. Under Kerry's plan, schools would also take into consideration such things as parental satisfaction, teacher and student attendance, and graduation rates.

  • States that implement high standards will be rewarded. Kerry feels that the current NCLB Act rewards schools with low standards and penalizes schools with high standards, because schools can achieve higher scores with lower standards.

  • Enact reforms that give states and school districts the freedom to provide more assistance for schools with the most difficulties, provide federal government funding for professional development requirements, ensure that any group or program that receives NCLB funding fully complies with federal civil rights laws, and close loopholes.
The third part of Kerry's plan involves further improvements to schools, including:
  • Higher teacher pay for higher standards - Teachers should be highly qualified, and schools should institute strong professional development plans to ensure continued teacher growth and support.
  • Recruiting and training school principals - Because a high percentage of school principals are now retiring, Kerry proposes investing $120 million for the School Leadership Program to recruit and train principals in every low-performing or high-needs school across the country.
  • Ensuring school discipline and creating "second-chance" programs - Kerry would ensure that teachers and school districts can remove students who are violent or chronically disrupt the classroom. "Second chance" programs would be provided to help these students in an alternate learning environment while they are in school rather than letting them drop out and end up in the juvenile justice system.
  • Investing in school repair and modernization - Because so many of the nation's schools are in disrepair, and many areas need additional school facilities, Kerry supports the federal government adding $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds to help districts repair and modernize school facilities.

Record:

  • Supported "No Child Left Behind"
  • Supported funding smaller classes instead of private tutors
  • Supported funding student testing instead of private tutors
  • Supported spending $448 billion of tax cuts on education and debt reduction
  • Did not support Educational Savings Accounts
  • Did not support allowing more flexibility in federal school rules (which would have allowed states to waive certain federal rules normally required to receive federal school aid)
  • Did not support school vouchers in Washington, D.C.
  • Did not support $75 million for abstinence education to reduce teenage pregnancy
  • Did not support requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer
  • Supported national education standards
  • Kerry signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade," with goals of:

    • Turning around every failing public school
    • Making charter schools an option in every state and community
    • Offering every parent a choice of public schools to which to send his or her child
    • Making sure every classroom has well-qualified teachers who know the subjects they teach, and pay teachers more for performance
    • Creating a safe, clean, healthy, disciplined learning environment for every student
    • Making pre-kindergarten education universally available

  • Supported $35 billion for Reinvestment, Reinvention, Responsibility

Nader: Position and Record
Ralph Nader stands against standardized testing in schools, stating that it has a negative impact on student learning and forces teachers to spend too much time teaching to the narrow scope of the test. He believes it "de-enriches" the curriculum, gives a false accountability, is culturally biased, and takes an inordinate amount of financial resources to administer. He supports broadening education to include civic skills that teach students how to succeed in the real world.

Nader believes that all children should have access to equal education opportunities regardless of where they live or their parents' incomes. He supports the federal government's funding for:

  • Head Start
  • Guaranteed pre-school education for all children
  • Nutritional programs for all schools
  • Repair of the nation's crumbling schools within three years

Record:
Because Ralph Nader has never held public office, he has no voting record on education issues.

Sources:

International Trade

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue
International trade issues generally revolve around import tariffs, trade agreements with individual countries, and broad, multinational trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Free trade means the elimination of tariffs, taxes, and import fees, and cutting through the red tape of complicated import rules intended primarily to protect a particular nation's industries. For example, it is very difficult to import U.S. autos into Japan because of the complicated rules Japan has put in place for imported cars. Free trade agreements can also provide incentives for companies to move their operations to places where worker wages and other costs of business are lower, and environmental standards are weaker.

Proponents of free trade say these agreements create jobs by eliminating obstacles to businesses and corporations. Those opposed to free trade agreements agree, but they point out that the jobs "created" are usually low-paying jobs with no benefits, and that the obstacles being removed include environmental protections and worker safety.

Currently, the U.S. is part of NAFTA, which is a free trade agreement between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. NAFTA was enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1994. Trade officials have not performed a comprehensive study of NAFTA's effects to see if it has lived up to its promises of expanding trade, creating jobs, and increasing worker wages, all while protecting the environment and workers. Independently conducted reviews indicate NAFTA has, in fact, had the opposite effect. Nevertheless, there is a strong push for an expanded NAFTA, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This would add every nation in the western hemisphere to NAFTA.

The U.S. is also a member of the WTO, a global trade group formed in 1995. The WTO eliminates barriers that might hinder corporations from extending their operations internationally, and opens new markets to these giant global businesses. It also imposes rules and dispute procedures meant to enforce international trade laws. Opponents of the WTO, who have demonstrated vocally (and sometimes violently) at WTO meetings around the world, claim the agreement takes economic decision-making out of the hands of the people, hurts indigenous farmers and businesses, tramples environmental protections and workers' rights, and operates in a secretive, undemocratic manner.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Badnarik says organizations like the WTO and agreements like NAFTA don't represent free trade, but are actually managed trade. The thousands of pages of rules and regulations represent yet another layer of stifling government control. Instead, Badnarik favors true free trade between people, companies and industries, free from government interference.

Tariffs that support domestic industries in the short term are disastrous in the long term, according to Badnarik. They hurt foreign workers and American consumers, and encourage inefficient practices by domestic industries. He also feels that open trade encourages peace, and that trade embargoes and sanctions are usually precursors to war.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Bush is a major supporter of free trade. He envisions a free trade zone extending from Alaska to "the tip of Cape Horn." Not only is Bush strongly in favor of the FTAA, he supports the removal of tariffs and import controls in all countries. In addition, he wants "fast track" negotiating authority, which would allow him to agree to trade agreements without approval from Congress. Bush is a WTO supporter, as well.

Record:

  • Although he supports free trade and the elimination of tariffs, Bush enacted heavy tariffs to protect the U.S. steel industry when it pressured him. Less than two years later, Bush repealed the tariffs under threats that they violated WTO rules.

  • As president, Bush has signed trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, and a bill that gave trade preference to the Andean nations in South America.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry supports free trade, but he has declared that he will order a 120-day review of all existing trade agreements to make sure the United States' trade partners are keeping up their end of the bargain. Specifically, he wants to make sure environmental protections and worker's rights are being respected. Kerry thinks the U.S. should veto FTAA and other trade agreements until they have stronger environmental and labor standards in place. He does not think NAFTA should be repealed, but that it should be monitored more closely and probably reformed.

Kerry has proposed incentives to keep jobs in the U.S., including tax breaks for U.S. businesses, removal of incentives to move businesses to other countries, and tax credits for manufacturers who create and maintain jobs. Another element of Kerry's plan is education -- by making college education affordable for Americans and supporting worker training programs, Kerry wants to make the work force a valuable asset that can help keep jobs in the United States.

Record:

  • 2002 - Voted yes on Andean trade agreement and fast-track trade negotiating
  • 2003 - Did not vote on Chilean and Singapore trade agreements
  • 2001 - Voted yes on granting normal trade relations to Vietnam
  • 2001 - Voted yes on a bill that extended an older set of sanctions against companies investing in oil or gas power in Libya or Iran
  • 2000 - Voted yes on granting normal trade relations to China
  • 1994 - Voted yes on General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a precursor to WTO
  • 1993 - Voted yes on NAFTA
  • 1995 - Voted yes on trade sanctions against Japan as punishment for their closed auto market
  • 1997 - Voted to table an amendment that would require Congressional approval of trade agreements that would change U.S. law

Nader: Position and Record
Nader supports what he calls "fair trade," rather than free trade. He opposes wide-reaching trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO, but realizes they can't be abolished. He wants them rewritten "as if human beings mattered." Nader claims that under free trade agreements, the U.S.'s biggest export has been jobs, mainly high-tech jobs to other countries. He also fears that NAFTA, FTAA, and WTO rules are written such that they supercede the laws of the participating nations. This allows corporations to circumvent labor and environmental laws written to protect people's health, safety, and economic well-being.

Record:
Because Nader has never held a political office, he has no voting record on international trade.

Sources:

Iraq

by Kevin Bonsor
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy Department of Defense - Defense Visual Information Center
The issue of Iraq is one of the most divisive in the 2004 presidential election. Success or failure in rebuilding postwar Iraq, including the handover of power from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an Iraqi-led government, may directly impact who wins this year's U.S. presidential election. Americans are nearly evenly divided over whether going to war was the right decision.

From Ally to Enemy
The United States' current involvement in Iraq is deep rooted in events dating to the 1980s, when Iraq was engaged in a bloody border war (1980-88) with Iran. Nearly 1 million soldiers and civilians died in that war, which ended in a territorial stalemate. In the background of that war, the United States secretly supplied arms to Iran initially, before switching its allegiances to Iraq in 1982.

By supplying Iraq with arms and economic aid during the Iran-Iraq war, the United States, along with other countries, allowed Iraq to build a large, modern military. Just two years after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used his improved army to invade the small, neighboring country of Kuwait, which Iraq claimed was a province of Iraq. In January 1991, five months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States launched Operation Desert Storm to free Kuwait and deter any plans Iraq might have for invading the oil-rich country of Saudi Arabia to its south. Desert Storm was a major military campaign involving heavy air strikes against the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The United States-led coalition successfully repelled the Iraqi forces, but decided not to lead an offensive attack on Iraq, thus leaving Hussein in power. Hussein had to accept heavy sanctions, end all weapons of mass destruction, and agree to weapon inspections.

Over the next 12 years, Iraq clashed with the United States and United Nations over inspections of military sites and a no-fly zone placed on Iraq. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, disagreements between Iraq and the United States intensified. In response, the United States government tried to form a coalition that would help with an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Hussein government and end Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program. The United States found mixed support for the war, but moved ahead with plans for an invasion anyway.

In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq without the support of the United Nations and against the wishes of many former allies, such as France and Russia. The war on Iraq is the first pre-emptive war -- a war intended to prevent a possible attack -- in United States history. The United States did find support from England, Spain, Italy, Japan, and dozens of other countries. However, the United States is still seen as the aggressor by many in the global community.

Within a month after the invasion began, the Hussein government was overthrown. In the aftermath of the war, the United States has taken on the roles of nation-builder and security force. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to attack U.S. and coalition forces and kidnap and murder foreign workers.

Postwar Iraq
It took less than a month after the invasion began in March 2003 for U.S.-led forces to march to Baghdad and topple the Hussein government. In May 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations. While the initial goal of ousting the Hussein government was met within a couple of months, U.S. soldiers may remain in Iraq for years to come.

There are several factors that complicate the situation in postwar Iraq, including:

  • Continuing violence - Approximately 10,000 civilians have been killed since combat began in March 2003, according to a group of British and U.S. researchers who organized the Iraq Body Count project. Nearly 1,000 coalition soldiers have been killed in that same time period.

  • Terrorists - Many experts think that the instability in Iraq has allowed many foreign terrorists to enter the country. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist, has become the deadliest threat to peace. Al-Zarqawi has led large-scale bombings and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi security forces. He is also responsible for the brutal murders of foreign hostages.

  • Shiite Unrest - The large Shiite Muslim majority in Iraq has consistently rejected the presence of the United States and coalition forces. Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr was responsible for a number of attacks on U.S. forces. He is now trying to build political power for elections in 2005.

  • No WMD evidence - Although cited by the U.S. and British governments as a key reason for invading Iraq, evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program has yet to be discovered.

  • Prisoner Abuse - By April 2003, a month after the war began, the International Red Cross complained of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq. In January 2004, a military policeman handed over evidence of Iraqi prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison to army investigators.
Many experts worry that instability in Iraq could cause increased unrest across the entire Middle East region. It's likely that the United States and other coalition countries will be involved in the rebuilding and stabilizing of Iraq for years to come.

The Handover of Power
On June 30, 2004, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority transferred governmental authority to an interim Iraqi government. This government will have sovereignty, but a multinational, U.S.-led force will remain in Iraq to provide security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. There is no timeline for a troop pullout.

Following the handover, Paul Bremer, who had led the occupation authority, immediately returned to the United States. His departure signified the official turnover of the government to the Iraqi interim government.

Several issues face the interim government and will set the tone for Iraqi-U.S. relations as the interim government tries to separate itself from U.S. influence. The most contentious issues include:

  • Bringing Saddam Hussein back to Iraq for trial - U.S. President Bush has declined to set a time for when Hussein would be turned over to Iraqi authorities. The interim government is likely to press for a quick return of the deposed Iraqi dictator.

  • The $18 billion in reconstruction funds - The funds were in U.S. control prior to June 30, and Iraqi leaders are likely to press the United States for control of that money.

  • Plans to establish a U.S. embassy in the former presidential palace - This offends many Iraqis, who feel it undermines their efforts for full sovereignty.

Badnarik: Position and Record
by Ed Grabianowski
October 2004

On his campaign Web site, Badnarik succinctly explains his Iraq position: "The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished."

Badnarik emphasizes that the Libertarian policy of non-interference with other governments is not pacifism. He believes the United States should be able to respond aggressively when attacked, stating that "Libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, not national offense." As president, Badnarik would have requested an official declaration of war from Congress, based on all possible intelligence and evidence, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He also would have created a well-defined plan with a focused goal, rather than the abstract and seemingly endless "war on terrorism."

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush targeted Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as an "axis of evil" that threatened the national security of the United States. Bush still claims that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, and that there was a direct link between Iraq and the al-Queda terrorist organization, which was responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 2001. As of June 2004, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program or that it had ties to al-Queda.

Bush went before the U.N. in September 2002 to try and gain U.N. support for military action against Iraq. When efforts to gain U.N. backing failed, the United States, with the support of a coalition of nations, went ahead and invaded Iraq in March 2003. The invasion was the first pre-emptive war ever fought by the United States. While some criticize the decision to go to war, others hail the Bush administration for deposing Hussein, who was recognized as a brutal dictator. Bush has stated that a world without Hussein makes the word safer from terrorism.

Now that power has been handed over to the Iraqi people, Bush is saying that the United States will stay in Iraq until the job is done. However, the Bush administration has not announced a specific plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry initially voted for the congressional authorization for war in Iraq in October 2002, but soon became a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. Kerry continues to say that Bush should have tried harder to rally international support, including that of the United Nations. Kerry still believes that the U.S. should pursue more international involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq.

On Kerry's Web site in June 2004, Kerry suggests making Iraq part of NATO's global mission, stating:

    NATO is now a global security organization, and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq's border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 U.S. troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

Kerry also suggested that a U.N. High Commissioner should have been appointed to oversee the transition of power to Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to seek direct U.N. involvement in the handover.

Nader: Position and Record
Ralph Nader believes that congress should begin impeachment hearings against U.S. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for conducting an unconstitutional war in Iraq and for propagating five falsehoods that led to the invasion of Iraq. Nader claims that Congress unlawfully transferred war powers to the president, allowing him to conduct a war. It was unlawful, Nader claims, because the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to decide to send a nation to war.

The five falsehoods that Nader cites include:

  • Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - Nader claims there were no such weapons.
  • Iraq had ties to al-Queda - Nader says the White House claimed a link despite CIA and FBI reports to the contrary.
  • Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States - Nader says Hussein's power in Iraq was in fact waning and was threatened by Kurds in the north.
  • Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors - Nader says that Iraq was weaker than many of its neighbors, including Turkey, Iran and Israel.
  • Liberation of the Iraqi people - Nader claims the United States has often supported brutal dictators, including Hussein during the 1980s, to support its own agenda. Nader claims the real reason for the United States attacking Iraq was oil.
There are no current plans for Congress to begin impeachment hearings.

Sources:

Welfare

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue
Welfare is one of the main issues that separate the conservatives (Republicans) from the liberals (Democrats). Conservatives oppose "government handouts," and for them, welfare is a prime example of "big government" trying to fix every problem by throwing taxpayer money at it. Liberals view welfare as a necessary safety net, helping to insulate the poorest members of society from the abysmal conditions the lower classes had to endure for much of human history.

Many Americans find themselves in between these two views -- they hate the idea of someone getting paid for doing nothing, but the idea of a child living without enough food to eat is even more horrifying.

The result has been a series of welfare reform acts that aim to protect children from poverty, but also place time limits on welfare benefits and provide incentives for welfare recipients to find stable jobs. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) act was passed in 1996, but expired without reauthorization in 2002. It has been operating on short-term extensions ever since, the latest of which will expire in September 2004.

In 2003, the Republican-majority Congress pushed for various welfare acts that increase the work requirements for welfare recipients and keep the same level of funding for child care. Democrats have sought to increase child care funding.

Although welfare reform has succeeded in cutting the number of people on welfare, critics contend that many people were removed from welfare simply by lowering the levels at which a family was eligible.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Libertarians are generally the exact opposite of socialists. As such, they abhor social and economic welfare programs of almost any kind. Badnarik feels that aid to the poor should be handled entirely by charities, with no government involvement at all and no taxpayer money used. He would cut taxes (by a lot) and hope that everyone would use the extra money to fund charities.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
In his 1999 book, "A Charge To Keep," Bush outlined his feelings on welfare and personal responsibility:

    The new culture said if people were poor, the government should feed them. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not in prisons, but in social programs. People became less interested in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and more interested in pulling down a monthly government check. A culture of dependency was born. Programs that began as a temporary hand-up became a permanent handout, regarded by many as a right.

This notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" more or less defines Bush's welfare policy; that is, the poor are responsible for finding their own solutions to their problems.

Record
As governor of Texas, Bush increased the use of private companies to administer assistance programs. He also started pushing for church-administered welfare, a concept he brought into the presidency with his "faith-based initiative." Also while in Texas, Bush started a welfare-recipient fingerprinting effort in an attempt to reduce fraud.

Bush placed strict time limits on welfare benefits in Texas, and set work levels that poor families had to meet in order to receive any benefits.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry has supported the popular notion of ending "welfare dependency." His stated goal is to put everyone who is able to work into a stable job. He supports affordable child care, welfare for legal immigrants, and "refocusing other social policies on the new goal of rewarding work."

At one point, Kerry voiced some support for trimming social security benefits for seniors who already have plenty of money, but he hasn't thrown his weight behind this proposal, likely for fear of alienating senior voters and the AARP, who would strongly oppose such a change.

Record

  • 1998 - Voted yes to allow welfare recipients the option of meeting their work requirements through enrollment in college.
  • 1997 - Voted yes to reinstate food stamp benefits for children of legal immigrants.
  • 1997 - Vote yes to an amendment that would allow vocational education training to count toward welfare work requirements for two years instead of one.
  • 1996 - Vote no to an amendment that would require food stamp recipients to work 20 hours a week.
  • 1996 - Voted yes to allow states to use federal funds to provide non-cash assistance to families that have used up their cash welfare benefits.
  • 1996 - Voted yes to an amendment that would limit welfare benefits to people convicted of drug crimes.
  • 1996 - Voted no to an amendment that would allow random drug testing on welfare recipients.
  • 1995 - Voted yes to reform welfare.
  • 1992 - Voted no to kill an amendment that would reduce federal welfare funding to states without "workfare" programs (in other words, he supported the amendment).
  • 1992 - Voted yes to kill an amendment that would allow states to withhold welfare from parents whose children don't attend school (in other words, he was against the amendment).

Nader: Position and Record
Nader likes to contrast welfare for the poor with one of his favorite targets: corporate welfare. Nader emphasizes the restrictions, time limits, and "means tests" which restrict welfare benefits only to the poorest members of society, while no such restrictions are placed on the welfare corporations receive in the form of huge tax breaks, government grants, and other incentive programs. "The Corporate Welfare programs in the federal government are double the poverty welfare programs -- if you look at tax expenditures and all the direct subsidies and giveaways and bailouts and loan guarantees, etc.," said Nader in a 1996 NPR interview.

In terms of policy, Nader would enact what he calls "a domestic Marshall plan" that would include creating jobs through numerous public works projects.

Record
Because he has never held a political office, Nader has no voting record on welfare.

Sources:

Lots More Information

Related HowStuffWorks Articles

More Great Links