The Decisive Pro-Bush Argument

With four days left before the biggest election in history, I must make sure that I do everything I can to get our President re-elected. As chairman of the SHU College Republicans, as well as a volunteer on the Bush-Cheney campaign, and as a practicing Catholic, it is my duty to spread my knowledge and opinions about our Republican candidate, George W. Bush. In what will be the biggest political entry I have ever made on this blog (which has temporarily focused on right-wing politics given the election situation), I feel that if there is anyone out there unsure of who to vote for, reading this entry will hopefully clear things up for you. I plan to discuss the major topics of the ongoing political debate, positions of both candidates, and the reasons behind my backing of our president.

I have decided, although I didn't want to, to disable comments on this entry. While I love getting comments on my blog, this entry will be long enough, and people don't want to read another commentary debate. I will tell you know that not everyone agrees with what I'm going to say, and not everyone will believe what I'm going to say. But I assure you what I will be printing here will be the truth about GW, the facts about his policy, and the figures and statistics (that I have access to) that the media does not report.

This entry will be updated as the weekend goes on, so I would advise you to continue checking back. Thank you for reading. And please read this with an open mind. Don't be afraid to think, to think about John Kerry and what electing him will do to this country. Don't be afraid to think GW isn't that bad of a guy. Don't be afraid to change your mind. Thank you.

No Child Left Behind
The biggest education reform bill in the past twenty years. Passed within the first six months of Bush being in office, this bill has been hailed by some and criticized by others. The biggest criticism against NCLB is that it's "underfunded." Of course, this concept couldn't be more misunderstood. A few weeks ago I got to see Eugene Hicock speak. He's on Bush's cabinet as the head of the education department and he explained to me the truth behind this "underfunding" situation. The truth is that the administration is funding the Act as much as it needs to be. It actually raised education spending from the Clinton years. The problem lies within the states. Governors, mainly Democratic governors, are holding back the funding that the government is giving them. In Pennsylvania alone, Ed Rendell is holding back over a billion dollars in government funding. Many of those dollars are specifically for education.
Both sides support NCLB. Kerry wants to reform it. The main thing he will be adding to the bill is a "Merit Teaching Bonus." What this means is that teachers will get bonuses if their kids get A's. What kind of message will that send to teachers? Teach your kids to ace a test, or worse yet, just give them A's and you get some sweet cash! No good.
Hicock explained that Bush has laid out this bill to work over 14 years. Results aren't going to be immediate, and when the results actually come around, Bush won't be getting credit for them. It's a long-term reform bill that is showing results across the country. If you want to fix it, you have to elect more conservative, education-minded, governors in your state to get the funding where it needs to go.

Higher Education
Bush's main theory, one which I certainly agree, is that if you want more people to get jobs you have to get more people to go to college. Better educated workers will bring more jobs, and keep more jobs in America. So instead of increasing welfare and other government aid programs, he stresses the important of hitting the books. Bush has raised government aid for college by 55% since Bill Clinton. He's also increased Pell Grants by 47% since Bill Clinton. He's giving more funding to community colleges, and bonus for dual-enrollment programs (where high school students start college early).
John Kerry's plan for college aid is offering kids the chance to work it off. He's proposing a new program for kids to work "high-stress" jobs (like social work or mentoring) for two years, and then the government will pay for four years of college. Sound vague? Yeah, it is... but that's all the information he offers on the subject on his website. It all comes back to how you believe more jobs will be created. If you think raising the minimum wage, taxing the job creators of the country, and penalizing those who outsource will make businesses want to hire more, then vote for Kerry. If you think that better qualified American workers will be hired more easily, then vote for Bush.

Social Security
No matter how many times John Kerry says it, George W. will not be privatizing social security. But the truth is that our SS funds are quickly running out of money. And while I won't be debating how great of an idea privatizing SS would actually be, I would just like to point out that at this rate there will be no money for us when we get old enough to retire.
And so there are two options on the table. The first is Kerry's option, which is to increase the SS income tax, cross your fingers that the economy will boom, and keep things the way they are. Or you can go W's route, which is to allow folks (mainly young adults like us) to create personal savings accounts. This means that we can set some money aside and it can't be touched by the government, so we will be guaranteed some cash when we retire. It's an option, not a requirement, and I'm all about it! This goes back to how much you want the government involved in your life... do you want some freedoms to choose, or do you want everything to be regulated and decided for you? The most important thing to remember is that Bush won't be changing SS for anyone who is receiving it now, or close to receiving it. I remember being asked that question by one of the Sisters of Charity during the library panel discussion. Kerry saying Bush will take it away is simply campaign rhetoric.

Health Care
During the last debate I was involved with, I made the statement that John Kerry's health plan was reminiscent of socialism/communism. At first people were a tad taken back by this statement, but when they heard my reasoning for this, they were inclined to agree. Once again, the difference between these candidates lies within your preference of government involvement. Bush talks about personal medical accounts, providing people with more options and choices and allows you to get the care that you need immediately. Kerry talks about making healthcare and medicare available to everyone, a brand of government controlled and regulated healthcare. He has made numerous references to the healthcare systems of Canada and Europe... socialist healthcare.
If you want to have healthcare for everyone, government-style, like Kerry proposes, you have to realize this: taxes will have to rise. And not just the top 2% like Kerry likes to talk about. Everyone's taxes, from the lower class to the upper class. In France, where their national healthcare system is a big part of everyone's lives, middle class workers lose 50-60% of their paychecks to the healthcare system tax. No thanks, ma'am... I would much rather have another personal account.

The War on Terror
This is a fairly straightforward no-brainer... who do you want as President? The guy who said he would strike the terrorists before they got to us. Or the man who said we must pass a "global test" before we take any preemptive military attack. John Kerry's foreign policy is stuck in the 1970's, and frankly it's gonna get us all in a heap of trouble. He insists on multi-lateral actions, UN involvement, and more allies than you can shake a stick at before we do anything. He's bending over backwards to please Germany, France, and Russia; three countries who would go behind our backs the second they smelled oil from the enemy. How can anyone put so much trust in the UN, especially after their Oil for Food scandal, the Iraq sanctions bribes, and the numerous terrorist-harboring countries on the panel. It's a corrupt organization, but you can't be popular in the world if you aren't playing with them. Kerry only cares about us being "loved" in the world.
Bush has a slightly different plan: America's security interests come before France and the UN's. We can't be afraid to go it alone, and we can't wait for terrorists to hit us before we go on the offensive. Bush has allies, some extremely important allies (England, Italy, Poland, Japan, etc). And more and more countries are hopping on board as we see just how ruthless these extremists are.

Iraq
John Kerry talks alot about Iraq and how his plan is so much better than George's. When I went to check out his plan on his website, I found it to be more vague than an Escher drawing viewed from 100 yards away. Kerry wants to train Iraqi troops at breakneck speeds and then pull out of the country within 6 months of being in office. Something in my gut tells me that's an awful idea. Bush's plan for staying the course, working with the Iraqis and their allies to make them a free country is a little wiser. Making sure these January elections go through is extremely important.
For me it all comes back to respect. Kerry has used this war as a political tool to advance himself whenever possible. Sometimes he's for it, other times he's against it. He says it's the "wrong war at the wrong time" and yet he talks about how much he loves our troops. He wants to keep allies, and yet he calls the prime minister of Iraq a puppet, and has succeeded in pissing off the Brits, the Polish, and the Italians. He calls our allies "bribed," when in actuality it's the people that aren't our allies that were bribes. How can the nations, the troops, and the leaders of the future respect a president like John Kerry? Bush has stayed strong, humble, and grounded during this war. He admitted that we now know that there were no weapons when we invaded, even though we all thought there were (including John Kerry). But he also realizes that we've liberated millions of people over there, we've gained a new ally in the war on Terror, and that there is more than just Bin Laden in the world against America. Kerry's going to need to take off his horse-blinders if he wants to succeed in Iraq.

Homeland Security
Bush was the man who created the department of Homeland Security, appointing none other than PA Gov. Tom Ridge as the head of it. Over the years, thanks to the help of the Patriot Act, the dept. of Homeland security has busted numerous terror cells operating in the US. It has caught a member of Al Quaeda trying to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge, along with busting groups of terrorists in Buffalo, Texas, Arizona, California, and Las Vegas (just to name a few). It's more successful than the media would lead you to believe.
John Kerry's stance isn't that much different from Bush's, actually. But it is interesting to know that he voted AGAINST the creation of the department, delaying it over 100 days. Kerry wants to scale back the Patriot Act, which would add more garbage for law enforcement to go through before they could stop terrorists. Kerry views terrorists as criminals to be prosecuted, not as soldiers in a world-wide war. That's the key difference between these two on the issue of Homeland Security.

Taxes
Bush cut taxes in his first term in office... and despite popular belief they weren't just for the rich. He cut taxes across the board, reducing the marriage penalty, lowering the death tax, and adding a $1,000/child tax credit. He also gave out tax rebates, and managed to make our recession the shallowest in history. Bush understands that if you want an economy to grow (especially after being hit by one of the biggest attacks on America in history) then you have to be patient, and you have to keep taxes low. The economy only gets better when people spend and invest money.
Kerry, however, is going to raise taxes. He claims that it's only for the upperclass, that top 2%... but he's talking about anyone who makes over $200,000/year, which is MOST small businesses. Kerry's fiscal plan is estimated to cost over 2 trillion dollars, something that isn't going to be covered by just rolling back the 2% tax bracket. There is a larger gap there, a gap that is only going to be filled by raising taxes on the middle and lower classes. That's certainly the only way that his healthcare plan is going to work!
In an economy that needs jobs, you don't tax the job creators. You don't punish those who are working hard and making good money. You almost have to give tax cuts to the top 2% if you want them to hire more folks... well, that and reform the union laws, but that's another story.

Jobs and the Minimum Wage
John Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage to $7 by 2007... let me start by saying that's a terrible idea. Raising the minimum wage will do three things to our fragile economy: 1) it's going to raise prices on EVERYTHING. The minimum wage sets the line for how much people can afford to spend, when people make more money the prices for things will go up because they can afford it. 2) it will lower the value of our dollar internationally. The more money we print, the less gold we have to back it up, and the less our dollar will be worth. Just look at Mexico, who tried the same thing... now over half of the population is poor because of this. 3) job creation will suffer, yet again. Works will cost more money, so less of them will be hired. And to complete the cycle, if a company wants to hire more workers they have to raise prices. It's easy to say "we'll fix the problems of the poor by raising the minimum wage" when that's not gonna cut it. The minimum wage was never intended to be able to support a family, it is merely a stepping stone to better jobs.
Bush intends to keep the wage where it's at. His philosophy on the matter isn't to make a bunch of federal jobs or print more money, his philosophy is simple... get an education. The better educated we are, the better our workers can compete internationally. If you have a degree, you are more likely to get hired, and the standards for being hired are raised. Bush is doing everything he can to get kids into community and state colleges. If you don't have a job, you have to work to get one, not just wait for a government check to come in the mail.

Abortion
You don't get much more polarized than talking about abortion with these two. This isn't one I'm going to be able to argue about either, since everyone knows which side they are on already. But I will say this... Bush supports the ban of Partial Birth Abortion (ie pulling out the baby and stabbing it in the head), supports parental notification (so they know if you are underage and getting an abortion), supports the ban of the morning after pill distributed by public schools, and is against federal funding of abortions. John Kerry is the opposite of all of those. He voted SIX times in support of Partial Birth Abortion, he wants the morning after pill distributed in schools, and probably the worst in my opinion, he is FOR tax dollars spent on abortions. As I see it, that ties me to abortion.... and I don't want that one bit!

Gay Marriage
Surprisingly, these two have similar stances on this subject. Both are against gay marriage. The difference is that Kerry wants it to remain a state by state issue, and Bush supports a Constitutional Amendment. The even bigger difference between the two is Kerry's gaul in saying that gays are born that way! He said this during the third debate, after dragging Mary Cheney into the fray. Bush has said time and again that he doesn't know if gays have a choice to be that way, but he respects them no matter what. Nuff said.

Stem Cell Research
Finally, and certainly not one of the bigger issues, is Stem Cell Research. Bush was the first president to ever allow government funding for stem cell research, but he also wisely drew the line. He is for a culture of life, and is therefore against embryonic stem cell research because it destroys life. Instead he is for adult and umbilical stem cell research, which is harmless and just as effective. Kerry is for government funding in embryonic stem cells, investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a science that isn't guaranteed to produce results.
Every scientist I've heard speak on the subject speaks of overall potential in stem cells, but promises nothing. They say that if there is anything for them to find with these cells, it won't be for a long time and alot of money. That's a risk I'm not willing to take, especially if it destroys life.

And so this is every major issue I have to talk about in this campaign. I can't stress enough how bad John Kerry will be for this country. For some of you, you won't listen, and for others you are just tired of hearing it. I'm amazed when I see the gullibility and ignorance that runs rampant with liberals in this country, specifically with kids in my age range. The latest polls show that 45% of people voting for Kerry are only voting for him because he isn't Bush. What kind of attitude is that? It's a mockery of the electoral system, and it's that kind of ignorance that is tearing our country apart. If you aren't educated, then don't bother voicing your opinion.

If you align yourself with the "Kerry Heart of America" (aka HOLLYWOOD) then I feel bad for you. For many people, it's too late.. nothing I say will change anything. But I hope and pray that someone changes their mind after reading this. That someone who was going to vote for John Kerry, understands who he is and what he will do to this country, understands that Bush has done more than people give him credit for, and casts his vote in favor of our man from Texas.

I'm praying for our country, and I'm praying that the culture of Life, homeland security, and our President will prevail tomorrow night.

Posted by MikeRubino at November 1, 2004 8:06 PM