Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Top 10 Issues at Stake in the Midterm Elections

3 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Though it doesn't seem like it amid the hail of attacks, counterattacks and fuzzy closing ads featuring candidate families, there's a lot more to the midterm elections than politics. This is a battle about the role of the government, the U.S. place in the world and the best way forward. Hanging in the balance are how we proceed on jobs, energy and education, a bulging deficit, the new health law, Social Security, a nuclear arms treaty and much more.

The most likely election result is a Republican-controlled House, and a narrowly Democratic Senate with comfortably more than the 40 Republicans needed to mount a filibuster. Even if Democrats manage to hold the House, they will have a greatly reduced majority. Some of the incoming GOP lawmakers will be Tea Party victors whose battle cry was no compromise, no surrender. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said his top goal is to make President Barack Obama a one-term president.

McConnell told National Journal this month that "it's not inappropriate for us to do business" with Obama from time to time. His conditions, laid out over the past few months, include Obama doing "a Clintonian back flip," becoming a "born-again moderate," and accepting "center-right" positions. If Obama wants to pursue international trade agreements and build nuclear power plants, he says, Republicans will be on board.

Beyond that, McConnell and his party have made clear they want to reverse or undermine major Democratic achievements of the last two years, stop all future Democratic initiatives, and put their own very different ideas into practice. Their backbones will be stiffened by a cadre of Tea Party activists and potential primary challengers looking over their shoulders.

So what does that mean for the country? Here are the top 10 issues at stake, and their prospects:

1. Taxes. The first test of the new post-election order will be Bush-era tax cuts that are expiring at the end of the year. Congress is planning to deal with tax rates in a lame-duck session in November. Both parties want to extend the lower rates for household income under $250,000 (under $200,000 for single filers). Republicans want to extend the lower rates for income above those levels as well, a step the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would increase the federal deficit by $700 billion over 10 years.

Democrats will still control both chambers in the lame-duck session. But if they fare badly on Tuesday, they are unlikely to insist on letting the lower rates for the wealthy expire. A possible compromise would be a two-year extension.

2. The deficit. Another skirmish is bound to erupt on or around Dec. 1, when recommendations are due from the president's bipartisan deficit reduction commission. Obama has said deficit reduction will be a priority in 2011. Republicans have campaigned on pledges to dramatically cut spending, but haven't offered many details. The only specific plan out there – proposals by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to privatize Social Security, turn Medicare into a voucher system and the like – is anathema to Democrats. Obama recently declared the idea of privatizing Social Security a "non-starter."

For their part, Republicans have shown no sign they would accept a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, as Democrats demand. And politically, would they want to give Obama bragging rights as a fiscal conservative in his 2012 re-election race? Small steps seem the most likely upshot.

3. Social Security. There is some chance of a bipartisan compromise on Social Security. The commission could suggest such options as reducing benefits for affluent retirees and gradually raising the retirement age, possibly with accommodations for people in physically demanding jobs. Any proposal that wins support from 14 of the 18 commission members will come up for a vote in Congress.

4. Jobs. Obama has proposed a $50 billion investment in roads, rail and runways as a way to create jobs and lay the groundwork for future economic growth. He also wants to make a research and development tax credit permanent, let companies immediately deduct the cost of capital investments, and provide spurs for investment in such innovative sectors as clean energy. Even some Democrats deserted Obama on the infrastructure proposal, given the nation's anti-spending mood. Republicans generally support the R&D and capital investment proposals but blocked them before the election. There's a chance they'll come back on board when it's over.

5. Health care. Expect fireworks early and often as Republicans make good on their oft-repeated pledge to try to repeal the new health law. Given Obama's veto pen and the likelihood of a Democratic Senate, some of them acknowledge they won't get far. They may also find those pledges less popular than they seemed on the campaign trail.

Health law provisions are being phased in over time, and many are appealing – patient protections, free preventive tests and care, and so forth. One outgoing Republican senator -- deficit hawk Judd Gregg of New Hampshire -- has said the law's $500 billion in Medicare savings and cuts over 10 years "actually made some sense" and should not be repealed.

In addition, public attitudes are not clear-cut. An October poll of 1,073 registered voters by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 55 percent either had a favorable view of the new law or did not but thought it should be given a chance to work. A recent New York Times-CBS News poll found 45 percent in favor of keeping the law and 41 percent who wanted it gone.

A more successful path for House Republicans will be to try to de-finance specific parts of the law. There is no guarantee the Senate would go along and Obama would certainly be inclined to veto that sort of thing, but such provisions could be tucked into must-pass bills that would be hard for Democrats and Obama to block.

6. Financial regulation. Passage of the law tightening regulation of Wall Street is another signature Obama achievement that Republicans have vowed to repeal. The overhaul was designed to prevent another 2008-style collapse. There are multiple reasons Republicans probably won't succeed, including Obama's veto pen and broad support for the law.

De-financing may not work that well, either. One major GOP target, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is writing rules to make credit card, mortgage and other transactions simpler and more transparent. Banks say the bureau is intrusive and Republicans say it is a huge new government bureaucracy. But its money comes through the self-financed Federal Reserve, so Congress can't cut it off.

7. Afghanistan. Clashes are inevitable with the approach of July and Obama's stated intention to start drawing down U.S. troops in Afghanistan at that point. Most Republicans have been highly critical of that deadline and are likely to challenge whether conditions are right for us to start reducing our presence. The country is turning increasingly against the war, now in its 10th year.

8. Energy and global warming. The energy and climate bill that stalled in the Senate was the highest profile legislative failure in Obama's first two years. He and other Democrats saw the measure as an all-around win that would create jobs, reduce carbon emissions, reduce dependence on foreign oil and improve national security.

But the sharp partisan debate around what Republicans tarred as a consumer-unfriendly "cap-and-tax" system has killed for now, if not forever, the prospect of a law that puts an overall cap on carbon pollution and allows companies to buy and sell pollution permits. Furthermore, many of the conservative Republicans expected on Capitol Hill next year do not believe there is evidence of global warming or, if there is, that human activity contributes to it.

Melody Barnes, the White House domestic policy director, said comprehensive legislation would create a framework for the future and send a strong message to investors, businesses and the rest of the world about where the country is headed. "That would be important and that would be a priority," she said recently at the Atlantic Green Intelligence Forum. But she also said: "There are many concerns about moving this kind of legislation forward from those who oppose it. And also I think the country taking in and absorbing big pieces of legislation that we've already passed, like the health care bill – that will affect the environment and how we proceed forward on energy legislation."

Some potential opportunities for legislative progress do exist. There is bipartisan support, for instance, for bills promoting energy efficiency in buildings, the use of natural gas and the development of electric cars. In addition, energy experts say they expect states to continue promoting the renewable energy industry and increased use of such energy regardless of whether Congress passes a national standard. All of that would have the effect of reducing carbon emissions.

The Obama administration also has executive tools at its disposal. Obama has issued executive orders to reduce carbon pollution from federal vehicles, buildings and employee travel. And the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama is phasing in regulations to curb carbon emissions from large industrial sources, including power plants. Republicans may challenge EPA authority, but the Supreme Court has pretty much settled that issue.

9. START Treaty. The goal of ousting Obama could thwart movement even on issues where there is common ground, or has been in the past. One of those would be a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that Obama agreed to with Russia. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said recently that some opponents falsely contend the treaty would inhibit U.S. missile defense and some are "of a conspiratorial frame of mind" about it. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, he predicted that incoming Republicans will say that "we want more time" to study the treaty. That point, in fact, is already being raised.

10. Education. Obama's K-12 education policies have drawn support from many in both parties. His Race to the Top grant competition incorporates ideas that appeal to Republicans, like charter schools and teacher performance. Lawmakers have been holding bipartisan discussions about revising and reauthorizing the country's major elementary and secondary education law, also known as No Child Left Behind. Will those discussions resume, and will they be different? Moderate Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware was the leading House Republican working on the new bill. But he was defeated in a Senate primary and won't be back. Several Republican candidates who appear headed for victory, meanwhile, have said they want to abolish the Education Department entirely.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Video: You Said It
We asked voters across the country to name this most important issue in the midterm elections.
Click the play button below to watch their responses:

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

349 Comments

Filter by:
diane0952

Eli, I was not here when my "ancient" ancestors came so I had no control or vote over what was done hundreds of years ago. When my Great Grandparents came to this country, they came by boat & followed ALL the rules/laws..!! The first thing they did was learned ENGLISH. And, they didn't send money home to their country of origin. They became US citizens the "legal" way & they earned & spent their hard earned dollars right here in the US of A. I am truly sorry for the poverty in so many other countries. It's heartbreaking but don't tell me that, for the most part, the illegal's just want to feed their families. Does that include their ENTIRE family back where they came from? Research the statistics please. More than 50% of the prisoners in our criminal justice system are illegal. If they have come here for a "better" life then why are they trying to turn it INTO what they "claim" they wanted to get away from?? And, for every dollar they send back to "wherever", it's more money that is being removed from OUR own economy. Tourism takes care of some of that. The more attractive a country is to visit, it generates money coming in & going out BUT, when you have the likes of 8 million people sending money OUT & accepting the "aid" of housing, schooling, medical care, food.... The aid given to illegal's in this country cost US taxpayers 10X more than the war in Iraq & Afghanistan combined every month. Like I said Eli, research the statistics please. Not to even mention the cost in US tax dollars that pays for all the application forms & instruction booklets in so many different languages. Sometimes you just have to say "no". When it's within a family unit, I believe they call it "tough love". When it's within an entire country, it's called "survival".

November 02 2010 at 8:47 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
SHARON

I am a 62 year old white female who has been voting foe 45 years. I would like to comment that I think the American people are so gullible and ignorant that the vote should be taken away from the people.

November 02 2010 at 7:21 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
Min. Larry

Geterdone, I have a question for you. You said that "when they enacted the separation of church and state". I've got news for you. There never was anything enacted about separation of C and S. Look at the constitution and try to find anything that says "separtion" you won't find it because this nation was founded on Godly principles.

November 02 2010 at 4:43 PM Report abuse +10 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Min. Larry's comment
Anthony Moore

Min. Larry Go back and read your Constutution, You'll only have to read the 1st Amendmnet so you won't need a long attention span and you might note the following: It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

November 02 2010 at 5:02 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
Ric

Larry, I agree that the Constitution does not contain any statement regarding separation of church and state. This separation that is touted was mentioned in writings by Jefferson, and Adams call the Federalist Papers. They were never passed into law, they were opinions. The first amendment merely states that the congress can pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This means they can say nothing about it in any legislation.

November 07 2010 at 12:10 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Get er done!

Under Democratic presidents, the biggest gains went to those at the bottom. Under Republican presidents, the biggest gains went to those at the top. Don't believe me? Check the short article from the CBS Morning Show. Search this: Candidates Should Address the Income Gap

November 02 2010 at 4:40 PM Report abuse -6 rate up rate down Reply
debbedeet

Hopefully as you are going to the polls today, a lot of you will think about our founding fathers and what they wanted for this country. Oh, wait a minute, the founding fathers only allowed you to vote if you were white, male, and owned a sunstantial amount of land. Think about that people of color, women, and lower and middle class. Want the country to go back to that? Go Tea party! You wouldn't know history if it bit you.

November 02 2010 at 4:40 PM Report abuse -11 rate up rate down Reply
diane0952

Nearly every poll that I have read that shows what people think are the "most" important issues, I'm just not understanding why illegal immigration is not at the top of the list. Yes, taxes, education, medical & hospital care, social security, medicare, the deficit, jobs, a wasteful war, they are ALL VERY important but, if they would just enforce the immigration laws we already have in place, nearly all of those issues would not be in the state they are now. We are one of the few, if not the ONLY country left, that offers "birthright" citizenship. What's up with that people?? I live in Nevada & yes, Harry Reid has done some Great things for our state. He also pushed for the bill that would not allow illegals to collect Social Security. Unfortunately, he's also the one pushing for "amnesty". OK, so they can't collect today but, if we make them all legal tomorrow, they can collect then. :( Let's get real here.... I hope you all took the time to find out what your choice of candidates thought about immigration before you voted. It will turn out to be the number one issue that will save or destroy our country.

November 02 2010 at 4:34 PM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to diane0952's comment
Eli

but i gotta ask you. when did your ancestors get here? we are invaders! we took this land from the people who were here first! if illegal immigration is one of your top priority you(and me) must really not like your ancestors(unless of course your native American). but who will pick the crops if we kick out the illegals? these are usually just people who want to feed there families. do you even know how hard the work is that they do?

November 02 2010 at 7:17 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
davandsher

Here's a thought, Poor people don't hire employees.

November 02 2010 at 4:33 PM Report abuse +17 rate up rate down Reply
Bill James

It is a sad commentary on our political system when it reaches a point where party is more important than the common good of the country. It is sadder still that the voters condone and support this insanity.

November 02 2010 at 4:20 PM Report abuse +24 rate up rate down Reply
lilqtea4u

kevin this country was founded on christianity... thats my god... and the one i pray to... but my children dont have the same rights to pray in school to the very thing we were founded on....i dont care who i offend.... this is still one nation under GOD.....

November 02 2010 at 4:15 PM Report abuse +25 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to lilqtea4u's comment
xxxr8r

Any politician who does NOT openly speak out against all the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION should find themselves JOBLESS

November 02 2010 at 4:07 PM Report abuse +40 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to xxxr8r's comment
diane0952

My sentiments "exactly"..!!

November 02 2010 at 4:37 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

FEATURED VIDEO

View All »

Discover inspiring videos on TEDWomen where people are reshaping our future with ideas.

View the Video »

Follow Politics Daily


Politics Home Page : Roll Call