COLUMN: Clinton best prospect

---

by Sheffy Gordon

---

CAMPAIGNING FOR an office can be obnoxious, dirty and unethical, but now that the Student Association elections are behind us, we remember that 1996 is an election year.

Actually, this may come as a surprise to some, but every year is an election year.

This year, however, the United States must choose who will hold the most powerful position in the world.

The results of Super Tuesday, the primary election here and in other big states, should give Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) enough impetus to carry him through the Republican Convention this summer.

Billionaire Steve Forbes and TV commentator Pat Buchanan will probably not face Clinton in the election this fall, but their issues might impact the Republican platform.

It is important to better understand some of the issues at hand in order to vote responsibly this year.

Bob Dole has not yet outlined a clear agenda.

His fellow Republicans have criticized this attitude; Dole believes that it is just his turn to be president after failing against Reagan and Bush.

He tried to woo the religious right away from contenders such as Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and Buchanan by taking an anti-abortion stance.

I predict that he will swing to a more moderate position now that he has secured the nomination.

Dole now faces a financial crisis because he has approached the federal spending limit for his campaign.

It is not a good indicator of a candidate's management and priorities if he blows a few thousand dollars on Ghiradeli chocolates at a particular Florida campaign function.

Buchanan claims that his greatest triumph this campaign was that he forced the issue of abortion back into the political arena.

Buchanan wanted to legislate his morality on the whole country making every abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

The government cannot dictate what a woman can do with her body; abortions have and will persist regardless of the law.

Steve Forbes pressed the issue of tax reform. He called for a flat tax where individuals would pay the same percentage of their income regardless of their income bracket.

Those individuals under a certain level would pay no taxes.

Furthermore, he wanted to redefine income as wage revenue; therefore, investments would not be taxed.

Wealthy investors (like himself) would pay no taxes because they do not actually work.

This plan would yield much less revenue for the government and add significantly to the deficit.

His rationale is that because more money would be left in the hands of the wealthy, they would replace government investments, and therefore the government could be reduced.

The money would trickle down through investments.

I may remind you of 12 years of Reagan and Bush where we attempted trickle-down economics.

It didn't and won't work.

The deficit grew exponentially in the '80s.

Clinton has succeeded in halving the deficit in his three years.

The issues this year will be how to continue to reduce the deficit and downsize the government but protect our priorities.

Each candidate weighs different issues with different priorities.

Our job as voters is to decide which candidates most closely espouse our ideals and represent our opinions best.

Clinton will continue his success at reducing bureaucratic red tape and reducing the deficit, but not at the expense of crucial programs.

He has defended the protection of the environment from those corporations that could turn profits at the expense of clean air and water.

This week, the Republicans want to remove the ban on assault weapons from his anti-terrorism laws.

Welfare needs to be reformed, but not by making it harder for mothers to work by not providing enough daycare.

Health care should not be available only to those fortunate to be able to afford it.

Clinton refused to sign the Republican plan to make drastic cuts in our financial aid.

This is not the way he wants to provide for our children's futures.

Education is a priority that can not be sacrificed.

This week, Congress is debating cuts again. It is up to us to show Congress that we need our financial aid and are willing to fight for it.

As students who will soon be entering the real world, it is important that we decide what is in our best interests and choose leaders that will protect these interests for us.

In a democracy, it is a crime to ignore one's civil obligation; vote informed and intelligently.

Sheffy Gordon is a member of the Rice Young Democrats and a Jones College sophomore.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the March 15, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.