A Presidential Agenda

In the all-important March 7 presidential primaries, California--the state with the most delegates for the GOP and Democratic victors--is the grand prize. This state will see a lot of Gov. George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain, Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley in the coming weeks. As they come here, they would all do well to think beyond the fund-raisers and to remember that when they look at California they are looking at the nation’s future. This state has long been a trendsetter. Politically the nation is edging toward where California has long been: libertarian in matters of privacy, activist in protection of health and the environment, leery of one-size-fits-all government programs but open to big ideas aimed at specific needs.

President Clinton understood these Californian impulses, and that’s why, in spite of his squandered chance to be a great president, his shadow looms large in this state. Clinton repeatedly appealed, as Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council puts it, to the politics of aspiration rather than the politics of grievance. Gore, Bradley, Bush and McCain should do the same as they seek to inherit leadership of this nation. They must spot what needs fixing but take care not to do too much and cause harm. With that in mind, The Times offers the following as a guide in the setting of presidential priorities.

Education

Although education receives only 7% of its funding from the federal government, Washington exerts substantial influence through federal mandates and Title I funds, intended to close the academic achievement gap between poor and rich students. Since 1965 the federal government has spent $120 billion, much of it going for teachers’ aides, without requiring schools to show results. States should be required to publicly account for how they are spending their federal money, and candidates are too glib when they say they will support “states’ rights to choose” above all else. Vouchers, which in various forms are a subsidy to attend private schools, are clearly no remedy for the majority who will continue to depend on public education. Education policy must center on how to improve the public school system.

What could the next president do that will improve academic achievement? The answer to that question includes the use of the bully pulpit to attack the failures of public education and being unafraid to back solutions, even if those solutions are unpopular with organized education lobbies. The president can keep the national focus on what works--better teachers, higher standards, greater accountability.

Health Care

More than 44 million Americans lack health coverage on an average day. They are four times more likely than people with insurance to forgo needed health care. Aside from their health, their effectiveness as members of their communities and families and as workers is put in jeopardy. Addressing the issue should begin where the need is most acute, with working Americans who are uninsured or underinsured because they are self-employed or work for small companies.

A good start would be to give a hefty tax credit to small businesses that buy health insurance for workers through purchasing coalitions. That reform is key in California, for the state remains dead last nationally in the percentage of residents who have job-based insurance.

A related health issue of national importance is the price of prescription drugs. Specific drugs cost more in the United States than abroad, and domestic prices often seem set by fiat rather than the free market. The next president should eliminate trade barriers that encourage price fixing, add a basic drug benefit to Medicare and use the federal government’s power as a group buyer to leverage down prices.

The Economy

The economy is doing so well that the administration has been able not only to wipe out a $290-billion budget deficit but to pay down a portion of the country’s debt.

Using the revenue surpluses to continue to pay down the debt should be the next president’s first economic priority. This would make more capital available for the economy, reduce the burden of servicing the debt and make it easier for the government to borrow in an economic downturn.

Medicare is an area of great concern to the aging population. Therefore finding ways to make sure the program is solvent as the baby boomers retire is a major priority.

Estimates differ, but it is clear that the Social Security trust fund will run out of money some time before 2030 unless something is done to reform the system. What may yet prove to be the Republicans’ biggest accomplishment while in control of Congress is the Social Security “lock box” principle, a pledge--accepted by the White House--not to use Social Security surpluses for general budget spending.

Still, the lock box will only delay the inevitable. A reform that goes beyond increasing withholding, delaying the payment of benefits or cutting benefits is necessary. The next president should tackle this issue during his first term. Any solution found now will balloon into huge benefits decades hence.

Campaign Reform

Gov. Gray Davis, with three years left in his term, has already raised $13 million in campaign funds. But he and others also know that the U.S. campaign finance system, with its reliance on constant solicitation of money from special interests, is unhealthy for democracy. John McCain, to his credit, has cast light on the corrosive effect of big money on elections. Needed: a ban on so-called soft money donations, which are funneled through political parties. Also quicker and fuller disclosure requirements.

Gun Control

To be successful in this arena, the next president will have to make gun control a continuing priority in a way that Clinton has not. Polls consistently show that most Americans support several common-sense measures, but Congress remains more responsive to the National Rifle Assn. than to the public.

As a start, the next president should push to close the loophole that still exempts gun show purchasers from Brady checks; require child safety locks on all handguns; ban the importation of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and put more people and money into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for enforcement of existing laws regarding gun trafficking and illegal dealers.

Foreign Policy

Absent a crisis, foreign policy issues typically command little attention in a presidential campaign. An exception in recent years has been China. However, candidates who attack an incumbent administration’s China policy, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 and Bill Clinton did in 1992, may well find themselves pretty much embracing it once they reach the White House. Given the complexity and importance of U.S.-China relations, it may be that the best thing to do regarding China in a campaign is to say as little as possible.

Several foreign policy and national security problems promise to abide. North Korea is an outstanding example. Do the candidates agree with the current faulty policy of, in effect, letting North Korea extort hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the United States?

The strain on the U.S. military of participating in an expanding number of international peacekeeping operations is serious. While the United States has a responsibility to lead when there are threats to peace and stability that affect American interests, it does not have an obligation to act when others, especially its NATO allies, are capable of handling a problem themselves.

The United States also should renew Washington’s commitment to expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement beyond Mexico to the rest of Latin America. By failing to create an atmosphere in which these economies can grow, the U.S. is in effect inviting illegal immigration by those who seek a better life.

Race

Finally, let the next president find the backbone to speak honestly about the topic that continues to vex this nation: race and ethnicity. Bill Bradley has done better than most in at least attempting to start a conversation about why the nation must shake off its collective denial about the tensions that remain just below the surface.

Candidates must be clear. It’s wrong for Republican candidates to pander with coded language that tells Southern whites that it’s fine to fly the Confederate battle flag, a symbol of a system that proudly held humans as chattel, a symbol again used against the civil rights movement. It’s wrong for Democrats to remain silent instead of speaking out against racial demagoguery, even if the demagogues are people of color with key constituencies.

Ultimately, voters respect leaders who apply standards with consistency and fairness. Indeed, as this nation becomes more racially mixed--one out of three new marriages in California is between members of different races or ethnicities--pandering to specific racial and ethnic constituencies makes not only for weak moral leadership but bad politics. The next president will have to understand this for the sake of an evolving nation.