Top issues in Campaign 2002.

Rarely has there been a mid-term election of such importance but with so much uncertainty as this 2002 election. As the dead-heat 2000 presidential election revealed, America is in a period of partisan equilibrium. Polls show the electorate split evenly in party identification with the Republicans and the Democrats roughly 45 percent each. The U.S. House of Representatives is almost tied, with Republicans holding a majority of six seats (51 percent). The U.S. Senate is effectively tied up politically, with Democrats holding 50 seats, Republicans 49 seats, and Senator James J. Jeffords of Vermont, an Independent, breaking the partisan tie. Although the governorships have a 27 to 211. slight Republican advantage, state legislative assemblies are effectively in partisan parity.

Historically, the party holding the White House has lost U.S. House of Representatives seats in 32 out of 34 mid-term election since the end of the Civil War (the exceptions were 1934 and 1998), and the party in the White House has lost seats in the U.S. Senate in 13 out of 22 mid-term elections. These White House party losses have usually been the greatest after reapportionment and redistricting; however, this is a year of exceptions, and redistricting has had little potential partisan impact on turnover in the 2002 House elections. This year will likely see minimal opposition in most districts and states, and this most likely confined to 30 to 40 competitive House districts and six to ten Senate seats. The prolonged battle for Congress has been fundamentally altered by the events of September 11, 2001.

Before the tragedy and collective shock of the September 11 terrorist attacks, domestic issues--the economy, health care, education, Social Security, welfare reform and the environment--dominated the policy agenda. Subsequently, the agenda changed dramatically and the President's job rating soared as Americans became instantly concerned about security and rallied around him. Presidential job approval jumped from 52 to 90 percent, settling in the mid-70s as we go into the fall election campaigns. Still, Bush's job rating strength does not seem to be translating into an advantage for Republican candidates. Both parties have supported the President's efforts to fight terrorism domestically and internationally, but realize that mid-term elections are rarely decided on international issues.

Although the nation has focused primarily on terrorism/homeland security/defense policy during the past ten months, pre 9/11 domestic issues are central to the 2002 elections. An evaluation of two dozen polls administered in the last six months support this contention. For example, in a May 30 Gallup! CNN/USA Poll, Americans felt the following issues were "extremely or very important": terrorism (88 percent), the economy (83 percent), military and defense issues (82 percent), social security (80 percent), prescription drugs for older Americans (77 percent), education (70 percent), foreign affairs (69 percent), patient's bill of rights (68 percent), energy (67 percent), and the environment (65 percent). In a June 24 National Public Radio poll, 66 percent of the respondents said domestic issues (such as education, health care, retirement) were most important in deciding how to vote for Congress, while 29 percent chose international issues (such as the war on terrorism, the military, Middle East conflicts).

HOMELAND AND NATIONAL SECURITY: THE WAR ON TERRORISM

The specter of another attack on America and the question of what government is doing about it will be on the minds of voters throughout the campaign and on Election Day. Fighting terrorism has become a focal point of governance in Washington and state capitals, and the American public is looking for bipartisanship. President Bush's proposal for a new Homeland Security Department has strong support from the American people and bipartisan support in Congress. In a June 20 Time/CNN poll, 71 percent of the respondents thought creating such a new department would make the U.S. more secure from future terrorist attacks. The debate over the organization and responsibilities of this department, the question of taking personal liberties away from Americans for the sake of national security and, with a large deficit accruing, how much should be spent on our domestic and national defense are all part of the terrorism discussion in campaign 2002.

Most congressional candidates from both parties generally support the President's national security policy. But, Democrats are asking hard questions of the President about the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and his homeland security policy.. Republicans are supporting the President's proposal for the new department and expanded funding and power for the Justice and Defense Departments. They seem to be more concerned about national security over personal liberty, and they are calling for large increases in spending for the war on terror and more powers to wiretap and investigate possible terrorist threats.

Some Democrats are concerned about the sweeping powers of the proposed new department that would allow it to operate in secrecy and. take away too much freedom from Americans. They are worried about any relaxation of our current legal restraints on the investigation and detention of suspected terrorists, and the current wartime emergency powers that make it easier to wiretap, interrogate and detain suspected terrorists.

THE ECONOMY AND JOBS

What the government is or is not doing to help create jobs and economic growth as well as in dealing with corporate malfeasance are certainly on the 2002 issue agenda, and there are clear differences between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties realize that poor economic times help to defeat incumbents and the state of the economy could well be the most significant campaign issue in 2002. Worries about economic well being are increasing in importance with further downturns of the stock market and the possibility of what economists call a "double-dip" recession. With Americans demanding a crackdown on the accounting industry and tax evading companies, and investors (60 percent of American households) expressing increased skepticism about the accuracy of corporate governance and financial reports, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed an extensive reform of securities and corporate accounting laws in mid-July.

Initially, House Republicans tried to delay and dilute many of the proposed changes despite economic realities. Ultimately, political wisdom dictated otherwise. In late July, with the stock market tanking amidst accounting scandals, the House and Senate agreed on tough legislation that largely included the Senate's broader crackdown on corporate fraud. With polls showing his economic approval rating slipping and Democrats gaining an edge over Republicans on the economy and in voter preference, President Bush quickly signed the bill into law on July 30. The new law imposes stronger new penalties on corporate wrongdoing while establishing a board to oversee the accounting industry and increasing funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Even with this accomplished, questions surrounding implementation of the new law, the market's continued instability and other economic uncertainties mean that the economy will remain a major issue on the campaign trail.

QUALITY AND COST OF EDUCATION

As it has been for a decade, the quality and cost of education is still a major issue in the 2002 campaign. Education reform (including vouchers and mandatory testing) is consistently the second or third most important issue given by voters in the major polls during the last six months. President Bush was forced to give up on his plan for nationwide school vouchers early in last year's debate over education reform legislation. This year, the President and Republican congressional candidates have revived the idea, proposing a voucher demonstration program and tuition tax credit. This plan would allow families to claim up to a $2,500 income tax credit for money spent on private tuition, tutoring and other expenses when their children are in schools deemed to be failing under the standards set by the new education law passed this year.

Encouraged by the Supreme Court decision upholding a Cleveland school voucher program, Republicans are pushing hard for vouchers (and tax credits) to help parents with children in failing public schools pay for private school tuition or tutoring. Generally, Democrats have opposed vouchers and tax credits for parents sending their children to private schools. They believe that such actions would prove detrimental to the entire public school system and exacerbate the inequities of the "have" and "have not" schools. Instead of providing solutions to the current problems of failing public schools--poor facilities, poor teaching, poor learning--vouchers and tax credits would simply leave the problems in public schools unresolved and result in enhancement of private schools.

Even though they realize that access, cost and the quality of education are primarily local issues, voters will keep vouchers, choice, testing, quality of facilities, funding for more teachers and student assistance for higher education high on their list of concerns in the fall campaign.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND RETIREMENT

Perhaps the most important retirement issues facing Americans are the relationships between the Social Security trust fund, the federal budget deficit, paying benefits to the baby-boom generation, and exhausting the trust fund sometime around 2035. Both major parties made bold promises to "save Social Security" in the 2000 election. Since then, neither party has taken action, save the partial privatization plan proposed by the President's Social Security Commission and supported by the GOP.

Privatizing Social Security, as advocated by Republicans, means introducing elements of choice, volunteerism and competition by partially replacing the present system with a combination of mandatory or voluntary private pensions and increased public assistance. It means allowing workers to open individual retirement accounts under established government guidelines. The Democrats are opposed to this approach because it carries the risk of poor financial management and fraud. Retirees could lose their funds if individuals are left free to make their own investment decisions. Democrats also argue that too many rules would mean the government effectively would be doing the investing for workers.

The very size of the Social Security system means any change, however small, would be a major disruption in people's lives and the expectations of millions of persons. Privatization has evolved into a major campaign issue as a result of recent corporate accounting fraud and failures and the poorly performing stock market. Advocating privatization of Social Security has become politically radioactive for the Republicans, and gives the Democrats a definite advantage on this issue. Still, although calling for protection of the current system, the Democrats are not offering any specific remedy to solve its looming financial problems.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE: PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Affordable health care for Americans, especially the elderly, is a major issue in the 2002 election. This fight focuses on the rising cost of prescription drugs and the problem of affordability for the elderly. The major policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans are the role of the federal government and the large difference in coverage and, ultimately, in costs. Before recessing, the Senate failed to resolve the divide between the competing Senate Democrat proposal and House-passed Republican bill. Now, both Republicans and Democrats will not be able to sidestep this issue in the fall campaign. The struggle seems to be about winning voters rather than passing a new policy.

The Republican House bill called on private insurers and competition to develop and offer drug coverage to seniors. Democrats prefer the federal government design and manage the benefit, and argue the Republicans would give too much money to insurance companies to entice them to design and sell drug-only packages to seniors.

Republicans advocate covering fewer retirees and lower levels because they are worried about the mounting costs of an expanded entitlement program that will eat at controllability of the federal budget. The Republican plan gave insurers a great deal of flexibility to design drug plans for retirees whose benefits could vary from insurer to insurer and state to state. It required larger co-payments than the Democrat plan and reduced total payments with enrollees paying their own drug costs between $2,001 and $3,700 (leaving a "gap" in coverage with Medicare covering drug costs after that point). The cost would be $350 billion over ten years.

The Senate Democrat proposal called for lower co-payments ($25 per month rather than $33 in the Republican plan) with no deductible (the House Republican plan had a $250 deductible) and drug cost coverage for enrollees after $2,000. The Democrat plan's cost is $400 to $500 billon over a seven-year period.

In sum, the Republican plan, privately insured for drug coverage, cost more for seniors, covered less and cost less to the federal government. The Democratic proposal, administered by the federal government, cost less for seniors, covered more and cost more to the federal government.

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Environmental and energy issues are linked to several competitive congressional races and could be decisive in these elections. The availability of inexpensive energy and an absence of policies designed to protect the environment were major factors in the economic prosperity of the United States. The trade off of economic growth, clean environment and cheap energy is always a key factor in American politics. With environmental policy closely linked to "life style issues," power plant emissions, oil drilling, urban sprawl and global warming have regained prominence. The problems of clean water, clean air, droughts and heat waves, forest fires, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the transportation to and storage of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and South Carolina, the regulation of power plant emissions, hazardous waste cleanup, higher automobile emission standards, agricultural pesticides, gas mileage rules, the price of oil and gas and other environmental/energy problems are very serious issues in many communities throughout the United States.

The federal government's role in environmental policy divides the two parties. Republicans are generally opposed to government regulation and the resulting financial burdens. The Bush Administration has turned more toward market forces as the appropriate mechanism for determining environmental protection policy options. Republicans have advocated deregulation, including relaxed environmental regulations for power plant emissions; fewer toxic waste clean ups and less strict gas mileage rules for trucks and sports utility vehicles. Most Democrats opposed drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and off the coasts of Florida and California, and want stricter gas mileage rules and more rigorous environmental regulations.

Environmental issues have a special resonance locally. The cost and supply of electricity and deregulation of the electric power industry which faced California exemplify a local issue that may spread to other states and congressional campaigns in 2002. Whether it be controversy over oil drilling on public land or off the coast of Florida and California, or over western forest fires, or over dumping nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain, Nevada or in South Carolina, the environment is a potent local campaign issue.

CONCLUSION

Although terrorism and homeland security are clearly on the minds of Americans, public opinion polls show that voters are likely to cast their votes on domestic issues, especially performance of the economy and education. Both parties are strong supporters of our current counter terrorism policy. Swing voters, the key to any election, are likely to be suburban women ("soccer moms") who are concerned about health care, education, welfare, the environment and the economic well being of their children and the next generation. According to the bipartisan June 25 Battleground 2002 Poll, a large percentage of women think that the Democrat Party in Congress is better able to handle protecting the environment, improving health care, protecting the middle class, creating jobs and strengthening Social Security. The poll also reported large percentages of women who feel the Republican Party in Congress is better able to safeguard America against terrorism, hold the line on taxes, handle foreign policy, fight crime and d rugs and cut government waste. No wonder partisan parity exists in the nation. Women voters seem to trust Democrats to take care of domestic problems and Republicans to take care of foreign and domestic security issues.

With two and half months before Election Day, we are in for a ride as issues ascend and decline and influences waver. Although competitive congressional elections usually turn on local issues, national domestic problems and national security will play a key role in all races. Voters are demanding an effective war on terrorism without taking away freedom, a robust economy, affordable health care, quality education, a guaranteed retirement security and a clean environment with abundant low cost energy. Candidates from both parties will promise to meet these demands, but will find it very difficult to achieve success in the short term when they get into office.

VOTER LINKS

* www.american.edu/campaignconduct

James A. Thurber is professor and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, Department of Government, School of Public Affairs, American University.