A Look at Clinton and Dole’s Positions on Domestic Issues

In this election, the records of President Clinton and Republican challenger Bob Dole provide ample if not always flattering information on their mettle on domestic issues. Here’s a tough look at both.

* Welfare Reform: Clinton’s first-term campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” reflected an accessible goal, particularly given a Democrat-controlled Congress and a powerful Senate minority leader (Dole) with whom he shared common ground. But Dole came up with a bill under which poor families would no longer automatically qualify for help and could get shut out. It wasn’t smart, it wasn’t fair and it was deep-sixed.

Under pressure from his reelection campaign, Clinton was forced to embrace a flawed GOP welfare reform bill. Now he’s promising to fix the new welfare law if he’s reelected and if Democrats can gain ground in Congress.

* Health Care Reform: Last June, Dole was the one member of Congress considered powerful enough to forge a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill, which allowed for seamless insurance coverage of ill people who changed jobs. But Dole presided over one legislative stalemate after another in his final months in Congress. Agreement on Kennedy-Kassebaum came after he left to seek the presidency.

Health care reform had been Clinton’s first venture, naive and potentially costly, in domestic legislation. Dole had attempted to pass a plan of his own but couldn’t get it out of the Senate. Targeted piecemeal reform, legislation of the Kennedy-Kassebaum type signed by Clinton this past summer, proved to be the only realistic way to proceed in Congress.

* Campaign finance reform, lobbying: Only now has Clinton been forced to back up his oft-voiced support for sweeping campaign finance reform. Why? How about the continuing (and proper) criticism over his campaign’s solicitation of large donations from foreign contributors?

Dole, meanwhile, has been the quintessential old pol. In 1994 he claimed support for a ban on gifts, entertainment, travel and more from lobbyists. But in 1995 he blocked a ban on gifts from lobbyists. And one can’t look past Dole’s heavy reliance on contributions from the tobacco industry, high-powered gambling interests and big businesses (like E&J; Gallo Winery) that have benefited from his influence.

* Immigration: Clinton has offered some federal aid to California for its costs for services to illegal immigrants, but not enough. Deportations of illegal immigrants have risen sharply in comparison to those of the Bush administration. Border patrols have been increased.

Dole, meanwhile, has flip-flopped and finally sunk to the basement of inciting rhetoric. Dole, in 1982, voted to kill an amendment that would have given states the right to deny free public schooling and other benefits to illegal immigrants. Now he says Californians should deny free schooling to the children of people here illegally. Clinton backs continued free schooling. Dole voted against legislation that would have forced the federal government to reimburse states for the costs of imprisoning illegal immigrants convicted of other crimes. Now he rails against Clinton for his failure to reimburse California.

* Drug abuse: Dole wrongly blames Clinton for an increase in teenage drug use. Dole’s alternative is shopworn and simplistic rhetoric: another saber-rattling declaration of war on drugs, a variation of “Just Say No.” It’s worth noting that Clinton tried to shift more funds to drug treatment in 1993, but Congress balked and Clinton acquiesced.

* Crime: Clinton cleverly seized the initiative here and differs little from Dole on many issues, such as new prison construction and trying more juveniles as adults. Clinton’s crime bill pledge of 100,000 new local police officers fell short. Dole wrongly opposed the ban on assault weapons that Clinton supported. The president has been much stronger on gun control.

* AIDS: Both supported the Ryan White AIDS care act, which provides a variety of services for victims of HIV/AIDS. Clinton has been the most responsive president in terms of funding and support.

* Education: Clinton focuses on improving access to better education in a second term with emphasis on public/private partnerships, extended school programs and more Head Start funding. Dole holds forth against a broken system that he says is irreparably damaged by teachers unions, so-called professional educators and the Department of Education, which he would abolish. Dole favors public money for private school vouchers.

* The environment: A mixed bag here. Clinton has retreated on carbon dioxide emissions standards and on fuel efficiency standards. His proposal for tax incentives for research into renewable energy was sacked in Congress. But he has stepped up efforts to shut down the nation’s most seriously polluted toxic waste dumps and has pushed for tougher drinking water standards. He also blocked oil and gas drilling and timber industry clear-cutting on federal lands in Alaska. By contrast, Dole wanted to shackle the EPA with the requirement of cost-benefit analyses for every new regulation it proposed.

Domestic issues, from health to the economy to the environment, have been the turning points of recent presidential contests. They go to the values of family and likability. Tuesday’s election will provide an answer as to who handled them better.