LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: BUSH'S RECORD DISPUTES CLAIMS OF COMPASSION

To the editor:

As concerned voters, we have watched recent political events with interest. The banner of "compassionate conservatism" that George W. Bush has raised over his presidential bid this year has intrigued us. Could it be that the Republican Party is returning to the legacy of rational conservatism bequeathed it by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and, more recently, Richard Nixon in whose presidency many health, environmental and conservation programs were developed?

An analysis of the record in Texas under Governor Bush does not encourage us. The data show that Texas ranks 50th in spending for teachers' salaries, 49th in spending on the environment, 48th in per-capita funding for public health, 47th in delivery of social services, 42nd in child-support collections, and 41st in per-capita spending on public education. Meanwhile, Texas leads the nation in violations of clean water discharge standards, in air and water pollution, in both the percentage of poor working parents without insurance and of children without health insurance and in executions (average one every two weeks for Bush's five years as governor). That state also ranks fifth in percentage of its population living in poverty. Governor Bush may be a compassionate human being, but his track record does not suggest the same for his programs and policies.

His record and statements suggest that a President Bush would seek to weaken Superfund cleanups, weaken clean-water standards, weaken the Clean Air Act, increase logging in national forests while reducing protection of wild areas, allow oil companies to drill in the Arctic refuge, oppose the creation of national monuments and oppose campaign-finance reform. Under his watch as governor, Houston surpassed Los Angeles last year as America's smoggiest city, probably in part because when he came to office in 1995 Bush canceled the auto-emissions testing program in Houston.

Another test of the claim of compassionate conservatism also raises serious doubts. Since the Republican National Convention, we have heard legions of party stalwarts arguing that this new cloak does not represent a change in party position.

We have also seen all the same folks who promoted the anti-environmental tilt in the Republican Party jump on board with neither pause nor any rejection or repudiation of earlier policies and positions (included amongst these supporters are this area's leading anti-environmental crusaders: Jo Ann Emerson and Peter Kinder). If the new image of a kinder, gentler Republican Party poses no challenge to party regulars, it must be an empty promise. Our analysis suggests that compassionate conservatism is nothing more than a ruse designed to appeal to the voters. We would have to expect from a Bush presidency exactly the same brand of politics that Texas has suffered under his governorship and that federal Republicans have promoted for many years.

There is no reason to expect that a President Bush would support any compassionate conservation in office. Rather, we would have to anticipate that, as he did in Texas, a President Bush would appoint corporate leaders, natural resource abusers and leading environmental polluters to key positions in his administration, once again hiring the foxes to guard our valued national chicken houses.

ALAN JOURNET, HELEN HAYES, JOE BIDWELL, KATHY CONWAY and JUDY CURETON,

Cape Girardeau

ALAN BRANT and ANN O'DONNELL

Grassy