09-30-2000

POLITICS: What's at Stake

There is at least one person in Washington--admittedly biased--who again
and again delivers one prevailing political warning he hopes voters will
heed on Nov. 7: Do not be complacent; so much is at stake. Bill Clinton
frets that the good times he believes his Administration helped deliver to
Americans also dulled their senses to the distinctions between Al Gore's
brand of presidential governing, which he wholeheartedly endorses, and
that of George W. Bush. Clinton also argues that the Texas governor has
cleverly cloaked his conservative ideology in jingles benign


enough to sound persuasively like the competition. "Blur, blur,
blur," Clinton has complained.


"The temptation, first of all, is to think, `Well, things are rocking
along here and this is not the biggest election I've ever had to face
because things are going so well.' And then to feel, because of the
strategy adopted by Gov. Bush ... `Well, there's maybe not that much
difference anyway,' " the President told a Washington Post
interviewer in August. "We shouldn't be fuzzy-headed here that there
aren't profound differences that won't have profound consequences for how
we live and how we go into the future."


There is another political figure who agrees that a lot is at stake this
fall, but he disagrees that candidates Gore and Bush are up to the kind of
leadership that can successfully change policy where it's needed
most.


"Corporate power [is] tying the hands of both parties, funding both
parties, controlling our government, distorting our public budgets into
massive military and corporate welfare allocations instead of for
children's health and education and the environment--there is not that
much difference," Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader
warned last month. "Is that the choice for the American people,
between the bad and the worse?"


Interestingly, voters are pretty satisfied with their choice of
presidential candidates--more so than they were four years ago, according
to a July survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and
the Press. They apparently disagree with Nader that they face a choice
between bad and worse. They also lean toward a desire for continuity
rather than change-and by mid-September, Pew reported, that feeling was
benefiting Gore. Fifty-two percent of registered voters polled by Pew in
late August and early September said they were satisfied with the state of
the nation, while 42 percent said they were dissatisfied.


Although no single policy issue grips the electorate, the most important
priorities for the next President, in order, are Social Security and
Medicare; education; health care; morality; the economy; and taxes,
according to Pew's survey of almost 2,000 registered voters. And when
asked whether Bush or Gore came closest to "my opinions on the most
important issues to me," 48 percent said Gore, 39 percent said Bush,
5 percent answered neither, and 2 percent said both equally. Those
all-important swing voters who are expected to make such a difference on
Nov. 7 told Pew's pollsters that on the issues they deem most important,
Gore would do a better job than Bush, even if they favor Bush's personal
qualities and character.


So is Clinton correct that this election could have "profound
consequences for how we live"? Is there, indeed, a lot at stake for
the country depending on who takes the oath of office in January?
Certainly, the two major party candidates differ in their thinking on
everything from the Supreme Court and energy policy, to abortion rights
and missile shields. But to take stock of the election's stakes is not
merely to measure the disagreements between Bush and Gore over some of
those key issues that voters are watching, such as how to safeguard Social
Security for the next generation; whether to add prescription drug
coverage to Medicare; where federal dollars should help public schools;
how to give more people health insurance and better health care; what to
do with federal budget surpluses, and how to cut federal taxes.


In this report, National Journal has asked a different question: In what
areas is the new President likely to have the most sway to influence
national policies? In other words, taking into account what we know right
now about executive power, world conditions, and expectations for
Congress, which policy arenas are most likely to feel the influence of
either a Bush or a Gore presidency? National Journal reporters came up
with an even dozen that best illustrate the argument that this election
could carry significant national repercussions for years to come. In
another 10 arenas--some of them centerpieces of the Bush and Gore
campaigns--it is argued that the election results will make little
difference. In some of those cases, Bush and Gore have substantial policy
disagreements but relatively little ability to implement their proposals.
In other cases, the policy positions of the two candidates are
similar.


Of the issues listed as most important to voters (and often most talked
about by the candidates), only two appear on National Journal's even-dozen
list of issues thought to be most in play as a result of the election. Tax
cuts and Medicare are definitely on that list--where voters think they
belong-as are second-tier issues such as labor policy, reproductive and
gay rights, foreign policy, and environmental protection.


But although voters are keenly interested in Social Security, the next
White House occupant may not have much success in reshaping a retirement
safety net without a consensus in Congress, an approving public, and some
sort of galvanizing event that would make the present seem like a better
time for change than the future. Those "ifs" place Social
Security on the "not-a-lot-at-stake" side of the ledger, even if
Bush has put more into play than Gore has, with his proposal to gradually
shift younger workers into private investment accounts, which the public
says it finds appealing in today's stock market climate.


Similarly, there appears to be a gulf between Bush and Gore on education
policy (should parents, for instance, be able to use federal money to take
their children out of failing public schools and put them in private
schools?), but it is likely that a divided Congress would require changes
that cling more to the politically vote-getting middle. Thus, the
influence of the next President would be diminished. On health
insurance-an issue of great importance to the 44 million Americans who
don't have it-Congress has already signaled a willingness to blend the
differences between Bush's enthusiasm for tax credits to help purchase
insurance and Gore's desire to expand existing health programs, such as
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which are
administered through the states. Therefore, on the question of the
uninsured, future changes do not appear to hang on which candidate
wins.


Clinton is challenging voters "to imagine what is it you want America
to look like in 10 years" and to ask, "What are the
choices?" National Journal is adding a third question that may be
just as significant: What difference is the next President really likely
to make?


Here are 12 issues where the impact of the new President may be relatively
large.


Interventionism, Multilateralism


Bush articulates a foreign policy more nakedly assertive of American
interests than does Gore. If elected, Bush has promised to reject several
multilateral arms control and environmental treaties, and to eschew the
deployment of U.S. troops to crises on the periphery of America's vital
national interests.


Conversely, Gore has been instrumental in crafting for the Clinton
Administration a foreign policy that embraces multilateral agreements, is
comfortable with international institutions such as the United Nations,
and is assertive in using the U.S. military to contain regional crises and
ease humanitarian disasters.


Both approaches to foreign affairs carry advantages and pose significant
risks. By rejecting widely accepted global arms control efforts, Bush
risks alienating close American allies and exacerbating widespread fears
overseas about U.S. "unilateralism" and hubris. Gore's more
assertive interventionism, on the other hand, risks overextending an
already stretched-thin U.S. military in a series of mini-quagmires that
could sap the will of the American public for sustained global
leadership.


Bush has promised that his Administration will launch "an immediate
review" of U.S. troop commitments in "dozens of countries,"
with an eye to reducing their role in peacekeeping and other nonessential
operations around the world. He intends to persuade the European allies to
assume all on-the-ground peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo, a
proposal that has strong support in the Republican-controlled Congress but
has been repeatedly rejected by European capitals.


Bush has also said that he will refuse to send U.S. troops to stop a
Rwanda-type genocide or "ethnic cleansing" unless vital U.S.
strategic interests were at stake. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's chief foreign
affairs adviser, said: "There are other instruments of U.S. influence
that can be brought to bear. The governor has a strong sense that U.S.
military forces are special, and they should be reserved for those
contingencies tied directly to America's national interests."


Gore, meanwhile, has been even more hawkish than Clinton in his
willingness to use U.S. troops to counter ethnic cleansing and quell
international crises in such places as Bosnia and Kosovo. Recently, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke-a close Gore ally who
could become Secretary of State-has endorsed reforms that would strengthen
the United Nations' ability to intercede decisively in international
crises with peacekeeping troops. The proposal could entail more U.S.
troops and more U.S. money.


Holbrooke rejects the criticism of congressional Republicans that such
peacekeeping missions amount to "international social work."
"The alternative to engagement is noninvolvement, and the
consequences of doing nothing are usually that the crisis gets much worse
and eventually costs the United States and the rest of the world much more
money on the back end, through refugee relief and humanitarian
assistance," Holbrooke told National Journal.


On international treaties, Bush would also diverge from Clinton-and-Gore
practice. Bush applauded the Senate's rejection last year of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and he has promised to
abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it cannot be renegotiated
with the Russians to allow for the deployment of a massive national
missile defense system. Bush also rejects the Kyoto global- warming treaty
that Gore supports.


Bush advisers characterize the Clinton-Gore team as too eager to sign on
to multilateral treaties that run counter to a strict interpretation of
American interests. Bush views "multilateral agreements and
international organizations as tools to exercise American interests and
achieve our goals, while Clinton and Gore seem to view them as goals in
and of themselves," Rice said.


Conversely, Gore has promised that if elected he will resubmit the CTBT
for Senate ratification, fight for Kyoto, and pay the United States' back
dues to the United Nations in full. "Gore is very comfortable with
the idea that it is often in the national interest to embrace multilateral
agreements and organizations," a senior Gore adviser said. "The
caveat is that he is willing to reject multilateral agreements when they
are not in our interest, as he did with the proposed international land
mine treaty. Bush and his advisers, on the other hand, seem to be phobic
about engaging with the rest of the world."-James Kitfield


The Courts


Choosing federal judges and Justices is among the most important powers of
any President. It's especially so now, because the Supreme Court and many
of the 13 federal appellate courts (which have the last word in the vast
majority of cases) are closely balanced between liberals and
conservatives, and because Bush and Gore have dramatically different plans
for them. Gore has vowed to nominate judges similar to the late Thurgood
Marshall, one of the most liberal Justices in history. Bush prefers judges
similar to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most
conservative Justices since the 1930s.


Replacing just one of the more conservative Justices with a liberal, or
one of the more liberal Justices with a conservative, could sharply shift
the Supreme Court's direction to the left or the right on such politically
charged issues as race-based and gender-based affirmative action
preferences, abortion rights, gay rights, religion, federalism, federal
regulatory power, and campaign finance reform.


The current Supreme Court has three strong conservatives, four liberals,
and two moderates who lean to the right on some of these issues
(federalism, race, regulation) and to the left on others (abortion rights,
gay rights).


This means that a liberal Gore appointee could move the Court to embrace
race and gender preferences; ensconce abortion rights more deeply than
ever; strike down some forms of public aid to religious schools, perhaps
including tuition vouchers; expand gay rights and commensurately curb the
freedoms of speech and association of groups opposing homosexuality; put
an end to the five more-conservative Justices' efforts to curb the power
of Congress to federalize routine crimes, land-use regulations, and other
matters traditionally within the domain of the states; defer to lawmaking
by federal regulatory agencies; and smile on campaign finance restrictions
that might now be deemed unconstitutional.


A conservative Bush appointee, on the other hand, might well move the
Court to sweep away the thousands of federal, state, and local affirmative
action preferences that have survived the current majority's hesitant
moves to curb them; uphold some restrictions on late-term abortion; bless
tuition vouchers for religious schools and other programs affording
benefits to religious and nonreligious groups alike; give precedence to
the First Amendment rights of private groups to exclude gays and other
people with whom they don't want to be associated; further restrict the
powers of Congress and federal regulatory agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, especially when they affect states'
rights; and strike down any far-reaching new campaign finance
restrictions.


There is not much chance, however-for all the publicity-that Bush could
engineer the two-vote swing necessary to end the Court's protection of a
virtually unlimited right to abortion during the first six months of
pregnancy, especially in light of the Senate's likely rejection of any
nominees it considers too conservative (especially on abortion) or too
liberal.


Although not one of the Justices has hinted that he or she might step down
soon, it seems reasonably likely that one or more will do so in the next
four years. The oldest are the liberal John Paul Stevens (an energetic
80), the conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (a sturdy
75-year-old who turns 76 on Oct. 1), the centrist Sandra Day O'Connor (a
healthy 70), and the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who is 67 and recovering
from colon cancer).


In any event, if history is any guide, the next President will be able to
nominate about one judge a week to fill vacancies in the 655 district and
179 appellate judgeships. Sixty-four slots are vacant now. Although less
visible than the Supreme Court, the appellate and district courts
collectively may exercise even more power. That's because the Supreme
Court reviews only about one in every 1,000 decisions by the appeals
courts, leaving appellate judges with broad discretion to interpret the
law-sometimes without clear guidance. Often the result is a
liberal-conservative split on contentious policy issues. The mostly
liberal Carter and Clinton appointees and more-conservative Reagan and
Bush appointees on the 13 appeals courts are close enough in numbers to
give the next President an opportunity to engineer either liberal or
conservative dominance.-Stuart Taylor Jr.


The Environment


It's hard to get past the cliches that depict Bush as a slash-and-burn
industry apologist and Gore as an industry-hating environmental extremist.
Both of those caricatures obscure the two fundamentally different visions
of federal environmental policy that either man would be able to implement
as President.


Bush embraces a Texas-style federalism that would transfer important
decisions on pollution control, land management, and species protection to
the states. Bush, whose aides say he never ranked the environment as his
top priority, often handled serious pollution problems in Texas with
voluntary industry programs. Bush's appointees to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Interior Department would be able to use the
flexibility built into federal environmental laws to impose similar
voluntary, state-driven controls.


Although Bush says he's convinced that the earth is warming, he says he
will reject the Kyoto climate change treaty, which requires the United
States and other industrialized nations to dramatically curtail the
emissions of global-warming gases. Gore and the Clinton Administration
support that treaty but have not submitted it to the Senate for
ratification, because of congressional opposition to its terms.


Bush's approach to managing federal lands would differ considerably from
the Administration's. He has vowed to reverse President Clinton's decision
to ban road-building in untouched portions of the national forests. He's
also criticized Clinton for further protecting some federal lands by
elevating them to national monument status. Congressional aides in both
parties question whether Bush could repeal those monument designations
without congressional action, but they note that Bush's appointees could
rewrite monument management plans to allow logging, mining, and other
economic activities. Bush also wants to repair facilities in the nation's
national parks rather than add to the inventory of federally protected
lands.


Bush advocates giving the states more responsibility for monitoring and
preserving endangered species. Rather than having the federal government
impose new restrictions on ecologically sensitive lands, Bush proposes
creating conservation partnerships between the federal government, states,
local officials, and private landowners. He also promises to open more
federal lands to the oil industry, although his proposal to allow new oil
and gas development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would
require congressional action.


Those policies differ remarkably from the proposals espoused by Gore, who
sees the federal government as the chief engineer in the effort to reduce
pollution and preserve more ecologically sensitive open lands. He supports
Clinton's environmental edicts, and, in fact, played a key role in
developing many of them. Gore said he would go further as President to
preserve land and crack down on polluters. If those actions depend on
congressional cooperation, however, Gore's more aggressive programs are
likely to be tempered.


In the economic agenda he outlined in September, Gore provided an
ambitious list of his federal environmental priorities, which heavily
emphasize tax incentives, research initiatives, and regulatory
programs-many of which he'd have to work with Congress to adopt. For
example, a President Gore would have to negotiate with the Hill to pass
his proposed tax credits for homeowners and businesses that buy
energy-efficient products. But Gore would be able to block Republicans in
Congress from opening new oil development in the Alaskan refuge or off the
U.S. coasts.


Gore says he wants the federal government to crack down on pollution
coming from the nation's oldest coal-fired power plants and from mining
operations, and his environmental appointees would have the authority to
expand controls in those arenas. They could also follow through on Gore's
promises not only to stop road-building in untouched portions of the
national forests, but also to ban logging in those regions.-Margaret
Kriz


Internet Service


One of the few high-technology issues that the next President will decide
is whether the Baby Bell phone companies should be allowed to compete in
the marketplace as providers of high-speed Internet service.


Like other telecommunications policy issues, the broadband debate is not
partisan. But Bush and Gore apparently hold opposing views on the issue,
according to interviews with their aides and lobbyists on both sides of
the issue.


If elected President, Gore would maintain Clinton Administration policy
and oppose efforts to favor the Bells through an overhaul of the
Telecommunications Act. A President Bush, however, would be more likely to
support efforts to strip the Bells of burdensome Federal Communications
Commission regulations written into the 1996 law.


Neither candidate, however, has spoken directly about the issue on the
campaign trail-and each would face tremendous pressure from both inside
and outside of his Administration to change his stance.


At issue is a major section of the Telecommunications Act that has
discouraged the Bells from building state-of-the-art broadband networks to
zip Internet traffic coast-to-coast. The law does this in two ways. First,
it forbids the regional Bell operating companies from transmitting voice
or data traffic across long-distance boundaries until the FCC deems that
the former monopolies have opened their local phone markets to
competition. (In the four years since President Clinton signed the bill
into law, the FCC has approved just two applications to enter the
long-distance market-Verizon in New York and SBC in Texas.) The 1996 law,
the Bells say, also discourages the Bells from building billion-dollar
networks by requiring them to share key parts of their computers and lines
with their competitors.


This year, legislation to unleash the Bells earned the support of a
majority of House members and dozens of Senators. But House Commerce
Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, R-Va., a longtime ally of Bell rival
AT&T Corp., bottled the measure up in his committee.


Bliley is retiring from Congress, however, and that leaves the legislation
in the hands of Bell allies, including John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman
of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Reps.
John D. Dingell, D-Mich., W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-La., and
Michael G. Oxley, R-Ohio-the three most likely successors to Bliley at
House Commerce.


Though powerful foes remain in Congress, supporters believe they can
muscle the bill to the President's desk in the next two years. If so,
those in the know predict that a President Gore would block the
legislation because he credits the 1996 law with igniting the
telecommunications revolution. "It would be surprising if his
position on issues he took the lead on in the Clinton Administration was
dramatically different in a Gore Administration," said Scott Cleland,
CEO of the Precursor Group, a Washington consulting firm that specializes
in high-tech issues.


Still, Gore would face intense pressure to sign the bill. Gore has close
ties to BellSouth Corp., a strong backer of the bill and one of the Gore
campaign's top contributors. Furthermore, one of Gore's closest advisers,
Roy Neel, is the head of the Bells' lobbying arm, the U.S. Telecom
Association. Neel, who has spent years advocating broadband legislation on
Capitol Hill, is considered to be a likely choice for Gore's chief of
staff.


A President Bush, meanwhile, likely would sign the legislation, to the
delight of Texas-based Baby Bell SBC. But like Gore, Bush would face
intense pressure to reject the bill.


AT&T, the bill's fiercest opponent, has been one of Bush's top
contributors, and the company's chief lobbyist, James Cicconi, was a White
House aide in his father's White House. And the man whom Bush often looks
to for advice on telecommunications matters--Pat Wood, Texas' top utility
regulator-opposes the broadband measures pending in Congress.-Brody
Mullins


Tax Cuts


With the budget surplus ballooning, tax cuts are almost certain to be
enacted after the election. But the next President will have significant
influence in determining their size and shape.


The two candidates have starkly different positions on the issue: Bush has
embraced a sweeping tax cut of $483 billion over five years, including
fundamental changes in the tax rate structure, while Gore has pushed for
targeted, Clinton-style tax cuts that he argues benefit the middle class
more than Bush's.


If Bush wins, expect him to send a broad-based tax cut proposal to Capitol
Hill, where some form of it is likely to pass. Even if the Democrats
narrowly control Congress, sufficient numbers of their
moderate-to-conservative members conceivably could go along with some
broad-based cuts.


If Gore wins, the prospects for a broad-based tax cut are bleak. Even if
the Republicans controlled Congress and they tried to send him such
legislation, he probably would veto it, just as Clinton has. And the
Republicans probably still would not have big enough majorities to
override presidential vetoes.


Bush, who argues that everyone deserves tax relief, complains that Gore's
proposal requires people to fit into certain categories to have their
taxes cut. Bush would replace the current five-rate tax structure of 15,
28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with four rates of 10, 15, 25, and 33
percent.


Gore proposes no such across-the-board cut. He contends that the Bush plan
is fiscally irresponsible and that the wealthy would be its biggest
beneficiaries. Gore would offer taxpayers specific, targeted cuts, such as
expanding the Earned-Income Tax Credit by as much as $500 for families
with three or more children.


One thing is for certain: As the budget surplus grows, politicians will be
more eager to spend at least part of it on tax cuts. "Politicians are
going to become more comfortable with the surplus," said Robert D.
Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. "While Republicans and
Democrats disagree on the details, they don't disagree over the political
benefit of spending the surplus."


And while the differences over tax cuts have stalled legislation this
year, many of those differences will evaporate after the election.
"There are enough areas in which the differences only loom large in
an election year," Reischauer said.-David Baumann


Overseas Bailouts


It might be the most important policy difference that won't be discussed
in the debates, or any other time during the fall campaign: George Bush
and his top advisers envision a very different (and diminished) role for
the United States in riding to the rescue of other countries threatened
with economic ruin.


This issue may seem a little remote to the interests of most voters, but
not if you accept the basic premise behind the Clinton Administration's
handling of such bailouts. Most voters see preserving America's prosperity
as the central issue of the campaign, and this prosperity was directly
threatened by the financial crises in Mexico and throughout Asia,
according to President Clinton and his top economic advisers.


They mounted the grandest mobilization of money in history-hundreds of
billions of dollars churning through the banks of a handful of economies
that were on the brink of default. No one disputes that the bailouts
helped, but a mighty argument continues over whether the rescues were
needed, and whether the risk to the U.S. economy from the crises justified
the risk to U.S. funds committed to the effort. Some critics argue that
the bailouts will cause even more financial turmoil. Bush hasn't had much
to say on this topic, but his party and his top advisers have.


The architect of the Clinton approach was Lawrence Summers, who was a
Treasury Department undersecretary in 1995 when Mexico's economy was
brought to the brink by unwise, short-term borrowing from abroad. Summers,
now Treasury Secretary, is the odds-on favorite to continue in that post
in a Gore Administration. Gore has had nothing to say on the stump about
the Asia financial crisis, but he has been a vocal supporter of bailouts
and aid for Russia, and his close ties to Summers indicate that he would
continue the Clinton approach to international financial
management.


To get a fix on the likely approach taken by a Bush Administration, it is
important to note the recent swing in GOP thinking. Before 1995,
Republicans had generally taken an internationalist, pro-Wall Street
position on matters of international finance. But after the GOP takeover
of Congress, the new Republican leaders were generally suspicious of
multilateral cooperation and big-money interests. They convened a
commission, chaired by economist Allan Meltzer, that earlier this year
issued a report calling for fundamental changes that would end the
International Monetary Fund's role as the leader of international rescue
efforts.


Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, has long been allied with
these efforts. In 1998, in testimony to Congress, Lindsey ridiculed the
idea that IMF lending will somehow safeguard U.S. exports and jobs.
"The role of the IMF in protecting our economy from a breakdown of
our banking system is negligible," he said. Lindsey is especially
scornful of the role the IMF has played in rescuing any country in crisis.
This indemnification of risk, he argued, only encourages unwise behavior
in the future.


Lindsey, in fact, was to be a member of the GOP-appointed Meltzer
Commission before his commitments to Bush stole him away. Today, Lindsey
says he agrees with much of the commission's recommendations, but denies
that they amount to a fundamental change at the IMF. Republican demands
for reform, he says, have already resulted in many useful reforms at the
fund, such as a promise from IMF leaders to no longer extend short-term
loans for 10 or 20 years.


C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in
Washington, says he doubts that Lindsey or any other IMF hard-liner in the
Bush camp would ever follow through on the Meltzer recommendations, advice
that would cripple the IMF. "No one would risk being blamed" for
the next crisis, he said. Might this antipathy for bailouts make Bush slow
to respond to the next crisis? "We won't know till that
happens," Bergsten said.-John Maggs


Labor Policy


Though the sharp differences between Gore and Bush over labor policy have
received scant attention during the campaign, whoever prevails in the race
for the White House will have a large impact on the government's role in
the workplace.


The next President's appointees to key federal agencies will make
far-reaching decisions on contentious issues that range from union
organizing to regulations dealing with injuries on the job.


Take the National Labor Relations Board, a powerful agency rarely in the
spotlight. Labor activists and business lobbyists are quick to emphasize
the NLRB's importance and point out that the new President will nominate
three of its five members, as well as its general counsel. Among other
duties, those appointees will judge allegations of unfair labor practices
and determine whether campaigns by unions to organize workers are
successful.


The two political parties are deeply divided over how to run the NLRB.
Several key congressional Republicans recently called it troubling that
the agency has been overturning precedents in labor-management disputes in
order to favor workers. Democrats countered that the NLRB needs more
enforcement authority to prevent employers from retaliating against
workers who try to form unions.


Efforts by the next President to impose sweeping changes to labor laws
probably wouldn't succeed if his party doesn't control both chambers of
Congress. But the next President could well issue executive orders that
would accomplish big changes.


For example, near the end of his term, President Bush issued an order
requiring government contractors with a unionized work force to inform
employees of their right to reclaim the part of their dues that unions use
to advance political causes. But shortly after Bill Clinton became
President, he revoked that order. Should George W. Bush prevail this year,
it's a good bet that he will reinstate his father's order. If a large
number of workers actually requested such a rebate, unions would lose
millions of dollars for galvanizing the grass roots and increasing voter
turnout.


Meanwhile, the next President will also have considerable influence over
the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Business lobbyists often complain that OSHA's intrusiveness in the
workplace costs too much without providing a whole lot of benefits. But
union representatives are just as adamant that OSHA must be even more
vigilant and aggressive in protecting workers from hazards on the
job.


Management and unions have been waging a ferocious lobbying battle over
ergonomics rules proposed by OSHA to compensate employees who suffer
repetitive-motion injuries. Even if Clinton issues the rules in his
Administration's final days, Bush could rescind them. That would surely
win points with the small-business lobby, which has argued that the rules
are too vague and costly.


Another hot-button issue that will turn on the election results involves
the Family and Medical Leave Act, which Clinton signed in 1993 after Bush
had vetoed it the year before. Should Gore prevail in November, Democrats
will push for an expansion of the law, which currently guarantees
employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies or for the
birth or adoption of a child. Bush probably would be unsympathetic to the
proposal, which the business lobby contends would be far too
expensive.-Kirk Victor


Medicare


No matter who is President, and no matter which party controls the House
and Senate, Washington's elected officials will almost certainly attempt
to change Medicare next year-if nothing else, to make prescription drugs
more affordable for the elderly.


That doesn't mean, however, that Democrats and Republicans will be able to
find a compromise to satisfy the political craving for a bill. Indeed, the
Medicare proposals from Bush and Gore are so fundamentally different that
any end product will probably bear the stamp of whoever wins the
presidency.


"It's hard to find a middle ground," said Marilyn Moon, a senior
fellow at the Urban Institute and a Medicare trustee. "Ideologically,
both sides feel strongly about whether the private sector should be relied
upon."


Added Robert Moffit, director of domestic policy studies at the
conservative Heritage Foundation: "It takes my breath away when
people say the Gore plan and the Bush plan are similar. The fact of the
matter is that they are not.... It's the real difference between Venus and
Mars. If you go with Bush, you're going to one planet, and if you go with
Gore, you're going to be on another planet. The question is whether you
can take two different planets and make them one. You really can't. A lot
of people for emotional reasons would say, `Let's come together.' But the
fundamental differences are so profound that they're
irreconcilable."


The difference is in the design and delivery of the drug benefit. Gore
wants to retain the entitlement nature of Medicare, whereas Bush wants to
promote competition from private plans.


Bush suggests spending $48 billion over four years to help states assist
low-income seniors purchase prescription drugs while he and Congress work
on a broad Medicare reform bill. Ultimately, Bush wants to give Medicare
recipients the option of using private health plans, some of which would
include a prescription drug benefit. Seniors with incomes below 135
percent of the federal poverty level would pay nothing for a prescription
drug benefit premium. Seniors with incomes up to 175 percent of poverty
would get more-limited assistance, and all other seniors would get help
with 25 percent of the cost.


Gore's approach offers the greater level of security historically found in
Democratic-backed entitlement programs. He would create a prescription
drug benefit for all seniors that would eventually cover half the cost of
medicines. Elderly people with annual incomes below 135 percent of the
poverty level would pay no premiums or co-payments.


The final shape of any Medicare reform plan would also be influenced by
which party controls the House and Senate. The President, though,
"really does set the agenda," said John Rother, the director of
legislation for AARP, the largest seniors advocacy group. "As much as
Congress doesn't like to admit it, the President is forcing Congress to
react to his agenda." And there's little room for compromise when it
comes to Medicare reform and prescription drugs.-Marilyn Werber
Serafini


Abortion


For adversaries in the abortion wars, this presidential election is a
winner-take-all contest.


Bush and Gore have talked little about abortion, yet the issue divides
them more sharply than virtually any other. Bush is a staunch abortion
opponent who as Texas governor has championed restrictions on abortion and
family planning, and he wants to amend the Constitution to ban most
abortions. Gore, by contrast, strongly backs abortion rights and has vowed
to keep the procedure legal.


The policy stakes are unusually high, given that the next President could
appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices and scores of federal
judges, and will have the power to issue numerous abortion-related
executive orders and to sign or veto any abortion-related legislation that
Congress sends his way.


"The future of a woman's right to reproductive choice is at stake in
this election," declared Kate Michelman, president of the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "We could lose our
freedom to choose in one day on Election Day."


Carol Tobias, director of the National Right to Life Committee's political
action committee, described the race in equally dramatic terms. Asked
whether the Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized
abortion would be overturned during a Bush presidency, she replied:
"We are certainly hoping that would happen."


Although Bush has pledged to apply no ideological litmus tests to his
Supreme Court nominees, he has stated that Roe vs. Wade "overstepped
the constitutional bounds." And he has pointed to conservatives
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his model Justices. Gore has made
the opposite promise: that a Supreme Court appointee in his Administration
would support abortion rights.


However, despite the alarm bells sounded by activists, some experts
believe that Bush is unlikely to win the two-vote swing necessary for the
Supreme Court to completely overturn Roe, especially because a closely
divided Senate could well reject any nominees it considers too
conservative.


The next President will still have considerable influence on abortion
policy on the Supreme Court and elsewhere. He will wield tremendous
judicial appointment power in the states, where about 8 percent of lower
federal court judgeships stand vacant, noted Planned Parenthood President
Gloria Feldt. Not to mention the power of the pen. President Clinton has
repeatedly vetoed anti-abortion bills passed by the Republican-controlled
Congress, including a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth
abortion.


Clinton also issued a long list of executive orders immediately on taking
office that reversed abortion restrictions imposed by Presidents Bush and
Reagan. These included the so-called Mexico City Policy that banned
federally funded overseas family-planning groups from providing
abortion-related services, even with their own money. Gore would
perpetuate Clinton's many abortion-related executive orders, whereas Bush
would reverse them.


Worried abortion-rights advocates have thrown themselves into the
political fray more vigorously than in any previous presidential election.
In its 84-year history, Planned Parenthood has not involved itself in
presidential politics, Feldt said. Yet this year, the organization plans
to spend as much as $6 million on ads that contrast the two candidates'
positions.


NARAL also ventured into new territory this time, breaking its
long-standing policy of remaining neutral in presidential primaries. After
Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Bradley questioned Gore's
abortion-rights commitment, NARAL took the unprecedented step of endorsing
Gore before Super Tuesday.


"We really couldn't allow our issue to be squandered negatively, and
to be used to divide rather than unite," Michelman said. In addition
to the ad campaign, NARAL plans to spend $5 million on direct voter
contact to influence the presidential and congressional elections.


Abortion opponents are also going all out. The National Right to Life
Committee "will do everything we can to get the pro-life vote out for
Governor Bush," Tobias said, though she withheld specifics.


For all their passionate differences, the two sides agree on one thing:
The man who occupies the White House will have a decisive say in abortion
policy.-Eliza Newlin Carney


Missile Defense


Both Bush and Gore support a national missile defense system to protect
the United States from an accidental or limited attack of nuclear-tipped
intercontinental ballistic missiles. But the two men are heading in such
different directions that American foreign policy could be profoundly
affected for years to come, depending on who wins the presidency in
November.


The Clinton Administration has endorsed missile defense only reluctantly
after years of pressure from congressional Republicans. Administration
officials, even after the President signed a law making it official U.S.
policy to deploy a missile defense system as soon as technologically
feasible, insisted that the ultimate decision will depend on numerous
other factors, including the system's affordability, the threat from
"rogue states," and the impact of missile defense on arms
control agreements with Russia and relations with other countries.


These factors would give a President Gore many outs for not building a
missile defense system, or the opportunity to trade it away to achieve a
grand bargain with Russia to cut nuclear arms even further. Remember that
Gore was one of the few U.S. Senators in the 1980s to master the arcana
and theory of arms control. He knows it and believes in it.


After Clinton this summer deferred a decision on missile defense to the
next President, Gore's caution was evident. "The President was right
to delay the deployment decision," Gore said, "because we need
more time for additional testing of our national missile defense system,
to ensure that these technologies actually work together properly, to
determine more clearly the costs of the system, and to conduct updated
talks with other countries."


The problem for a President Gore would be that it will soon be impossible
to be "a little bit pregnant" on national missile defense. If
Gore genuinely believes in missile defense, he'll have to give the green
light early in his presidency if the introductory, $30 billion system is
to be up and running by 2007 to meet the projected threats from North
Korea, Iran, and Iraq.


Bush, by contrast, has been unabashed in his support. Even though Clinton
has had no success in getting the Russians to accept missile defense, Bush
has said, "If elected President, my job would be to convince the
Russians and other countries why employing a missile defense system is the
right step to take." Bush has threatened to abandon the ABM Treaty if
the Russians don't agree. Furthermore, Bush wants a far more ambitious
missile defense system than the land-based system of 100 interceptors in
the Clinton proposal. His would protect not only the 50 states, but U.S.
forces and allies abroad.


A missile defense capable of such broad coverage is a far more expensive
proposal than the Clinton plan. Most experts believe that such a system
would necessarily have to involve Navy ships and possibly space-based
interceptors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, an
independent think tank in Washington, has estimated the cost of such a
system at between $100 billion and $120 billion. That approaches the cost
of the most expensive government science project in history-the Apollo
moon shots at $125 billion in today's dollars.


Bush could proceed unilaterally-if he had the votes in Congress-but such a
course entails risks. An expanded missile defense would take additional
years of research and development, during which time the Russians and
Chinese could either counter the technologies or simply build more
missiles to overwhelm the defense. An expansive system could also threaten
other priorities, such as a tax cut and the reform of Social
Security.-James Kitfield


Gay Rights


On gay-rights issues, Bush and Gore have track records that suggest they
would govern very differently in the White House. As Vice President, Gore
has endorsed the Clinton Administration's numerous gay-rights initiatives,
including a 1998 executive order that bars discrimination against gays and
lesbians in the federal work force. Bush, on the other hand, never imposed
a similar edict in Texas.


Gore has also promised to continue the Administration policy of appointing
gays to executive and judicial branch posts. From 1993-2000, President
Clinton named more than 150 openly gay and lesbian people to top
government jobs. Bush has stated that he would not exclude gays from
government posts if they supported his agenda.


During the primaries, Gore said he would try to eliminate the
controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the
military. He favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly; at one
point during the campaign, he promised to appoint to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff only officers who opposed the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy. He has since backed off that statement. Bush supports the
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. In any event, Congress would
have to approve any change in policy.


Gore also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a long-stalled
measure that would bar companies in the private sector from discriminating
against gays and lesbians. The legislation is unlikely to pass until the
Democrats regain control of Congress. Bush opposes the
legislation.


Neither Gore nor Bush supports the right of gays to marry. But the Vice
President has pledged to back efforts to extend married couples' economic,
health, and other legal benefits to domestic partners. Most benefits
plans, however, are regulated at the state level. As governor, Bush has
emphasized "traditional values." He has taken no position on the
partners issue.


Bush firmly opposes gay adoption. Gore has said adoption decisions should
be made on a case-by-case basis without regard to a parent's sexual
orientation. The states decide adoption policy.


Gay rights increasingly have become a legal issue, and both Gore and Bush
could have a major impact on the composition of the Supreme Court, which
is narrowly divided on gay-rights issues. Bush appointees would quite
likely have a more conservative judicial philosophy, especially on
gay-rights issues, than would Gore appointees. Over the next decade, the
Court could revisit a decision that upheld state anti-sodomy laws, and it
could also determine the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children. In
the next several years, the Court could also decide whether federal hate
crime statutes unconstitutionally intrude into local matters.-Megan
Lisagor and Shawn Zeller


Affirmative Action


The next President will have the opportunity to make his mark on
affirmative action through executive orders, as well as through judicial
and administrative appointments.


Gore is a staunch defender of President Clinton's "mend it, not end
it" affirmative action policy. Bush, on the other hand, says he
opposes quotas and racial preferences in favor of programs such as the
Texas 10 percent plan, which automatically admits high school graduates
from the top 10 percent of their class to any state college or university.
He has not, however, been especially outspoken about his home state's
approach and has even dodged questions about it from the press.


As President, Bush or Gore will have numerous policy-making posts to fill.
And the persons selected to head the civil rights division at the
Department of Justice, the Office for Civil Rights at the Education
Department, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the
Labor Department, as well as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, will greatly influence how the federal government regulates
affirmative action.


President Clinton has named to these posts members of the civil rights
community who strongly favor affirmative action. He has also used
executive orders to protect affirmative action. When the Supreme Court
handed down its Adarand decision in 1995, which weakened affirmative
action by stating that racial preferences in contracting are
constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further a
compelling governmental interest, Clinton ordered a broad review and
restructuring of agency policies.


Gore has promised a continuation of the "mend it, don't end it"
policy. If elected, his appointees would probably share the outlook of
Clinton's. Bush, by contrast, could greatly alter federal enforcement of
affirmative action by placing anti-preference administrators in major
civil rights posts. They would be more likely to address complaints of
discrimination against white men, and to regulate against preferences of
any kind in universities and the workplace.


"It's not like [the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs]
would let it be known that it's open season for not hiring women and
minorities," says Roger Clegg, vice president and general counsel for
the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank based in
Washington. "But what would be different is that companies are not
going to be pressured to discriminate in favor of certain
groups."


Odds are that whomever is elected President will nominate at least one
Supreme Court Justice. For now, the Court is closely balanced on
affirmative action. Depending on which seats are vacated, a Bush or Gore
presidency could tip the Court balance in favor of affirmative action or
expand the majority against it.


The next President will also have the opportunity to fill hundreds of
vacancies in the federal district courts and the courts of appeals-scenes
of the most intense legal battles over affirmative action. Presidents
Reagan and Bush, by and large, appointed conservative judges who were
opposed to affirmative action. The impact of those appointments is still
felt today, made evident by the growing number of federal court decisions
striking down affirmative action.


Clinton's appointments have eroded the conservative majority in the lower
courts. If Gore is elected, his appointments could result in a liberal
majority, which would provide a possible safeguard for affirmative action.
George W. Bush's appointments, on the other hand, could further cement the
anti-preference sentiment in the judiciary.-Megan Twohey


Here are 10 issues where the impact of the new President may be relatively
small.


Education


Although education is a top concern of voters, and both Bush and Gore have
been spending a lot of time campaigning in schools, neither candidate
would probably have a big impact as President on the direction of
education reform. That's not to say that Bush and Gore wouldn't push for
education reforms-both would. But both parties in Congress will also want
to have a say on education policy, and that suggests that whatever gets
done will end up being close to the political center.


"Education isn't at stake," said an upbeat Amy Wilkins, a policy
analyst at the Education Trust, an advocacy group for poor children.
"Education is going to be there in Congress no matter who gets
elected [President]."


Both candidates are already eyeing the middle ground. Although they
disagree on the specifics, both Bush and Gore have focused their education
plans on one result: closing the achievement gap between wealthy and
disadvantaged kids.


Gore has even begun to acknowledge the similarities between his approach
and Bush's. Both campaigns have focused on ways to try to "improve
our schools all across the country," Gore said at an Ohio middle
school in September. "Both Governor Bush and I agreed that the
policies and the decision-making should stay at the local level, and both
of us believe that there should be accountability-new accountability-to
encourage better performance."


To be sure, there are differences. Gore wants to spend twice as much as
Bush, reduce class sizes, and build more schools; Bush wants to offer
vouchers to students who attend persistently failing schools. Under Bush,
the District of Columbia might have a pilot voucher program.


But every executive branch proposal will have to grind through a Congress
whose partisanship this year blocked the reauthorization of the bill that
governs the main federal investment in elementary and secondary education.
Some Hill staffers predict that next year's education debate will be less
partisan because it's not an election year, and a divided Congress will
mean that lawmakers who feel pressure to show progress on the education
front will need to compromise. "At the end of the day, you always
move to the middle," said a Senate Republican aide.


Many of the plans Gore and Bush have put on the table are not new to
Congress. Gore's proposals for class size and school construction are a
reincarnation of what President Clinton and congressional Democrats have
been pushing for the past four years. Last winter, the House voted down an
"emergency" voucher proposal that is similar to Bush's plan;
Bush has borrowed several education proposals from Congress.


Lawmakers who are looking for compromises have pointed to a proposal
sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. Their
plan consolidates 50-plus federal education programs into five categories,
requires states to show measurable results, and gives the states $35
billion above current spending over five years to do it. "If anything
is going to get passed, regardless of who the next President is, it will
need to be along the lines of what we have proposed," said Bayh.
"If one side or the other just insists on having their way, then
nothing will get done."


And given that the federal government contributes all of 7 percent of the
money spent on education in this country, Wilkins said she's more
concerned about the outcomes of state and local elections. "What's at
stake in this election is whether or not candidates at every level, after
the election, will be willing to invest in these good times," she
said. "They can afford to do the stuff. Are they going to take this
opportunity to do those things that small budgets didn't allow them to
do?"-Siobhan Gorman


Campaign Finance Reform


Presidential hopefuls have talked a lot about campaign finance reform this
year, but don't expect much action following Inauguration Day.


To be sure, both major-party candidates are serving up plenty of
pro-reform rhetoric. Bush, who at one point dubbed himself "A
Reformer With Results," consistently attacks Gore as a campaign money
scofflaw. For his part, Gore rails heartily against "special
interests" and has pledged to make a "soft-money" ban the
very first bill he sends to Congress.


On paper, the two candidates differ markedly in their approach to
rewriting the election laws. Bush fundamentally toes the conservative line
that deregulation and disclosure is the answer. He would raise campaign
contribution limits on the grounds that "political donors should be
free to give more money," according to The Dallas Morning News. He
would also bar labor unions and corporations from donating soft money, but
would not extend that ban to individuals or state parties.


By contrast, Gore has embraced a sweeping regulatory scheme built on
public financing for House and Senate candidates who agree to take no
private money. He opposes higher contribution limits, endorses an
across-the-board ban on soft money, and wants better disclosure from
politically active issue groups.


Yet campaign finance reform advocates expect little of either candidate.
In part, that's because Congress remains a major obstacle to reform.
Public financing of congressional campaigns is anathema on Capitol Hill.
And while the House is likely to again approve a soft-money ban regardless
of which party is in control, such a ban faces an all-but-inevitable
filibuster in the Senate.


Even in the unlikely event that Democrats take over both chambers of
Congress, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, their enthusiasm
for reform can be expected to fade once a politically appealing soft-money
ban threatens to become a reality. That's particularly true now that
Democrats are for the first time raising almost as much soft money as
their Republican colleagues.


For their part, reform advocates have been burned before. As a candidate,
Bill Clinton pledged to champion campaign finance reform-only to drop the
issue once elected, and to become embroiled in one of the worst political
money scandals since Watergate. Gore's own involvement in the
foreign-money imbroglio has made it difficult for him to take the high
road.


"I remain skeptical," said Common Cause President Scott
Harshbarger. "The words are right. The proposals are right. The
question is the credibility of the messenger here."


Reformers regard Bush's campaign finance plan as riddled with loopholes,
but have little more faith in Gore. "You have the statements, and
then you have the reality. And the reality is that neither of them has
made campaign finance reform a priority," said Stephen R. Weissman,
legislative representative for Public Citizen. "And both of them have
been involved in raising soft money and bundling
contributions."


Not that some campaign finance reforms-particularly if limited to a ban on
soft money-are out of the question. The candidates' willingness to talk
about the issue suggests that it has begun to resonate with voters. Gore
would most certainly sign a soft-money ban approved by Congress, and Bush
would quite likely feel political pressure to do the same.


"I think Bush would be hard-pressed, if a moderate bill were
presented to him, to veto it," noted Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow
in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, which favors
deregulation. In the meantime, however, both candidates are more inclined
to use the campaign reform issue as a political weapon than as an actual
vehicle for change.-Eliza Newlin Carney


China


Presidential candidates talk a lot about changing U.S.-China policy, but
once they step on the Oval Office carpet, they seem to get cold
feet.


In 1980, Ronald Reagan talked about establishing relations with Taiwan but
backed off after taking office, when his advisers told him this could
start a war with China. Bill Clinton in 1992 attacked President Bush for
"coddling dictators" and promised to link U.S.-China trade with
China's progress on human rights. Less than a year later, Clinton
repudiated that linkage and ushered in an era of close cooperation and
champagne toasts. George W. Bush similarly has tried to look tough on
China, labeling it a "strategic competitor"-a deliberate
contrast to Clinton's "strategic partner." But that may not last
either.


Only a year ago, it seemed as if China might be a big issue in the
presidential campaign. Relations between the two governments were at a low
point after the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade;
there were shocking (and apparently exaggerated) allegations of Chinese
nuclear espionage; and Taiwan suddenly seemed on the verge of declaring
independence. Republicans fulminated about Clinton's alleged mishandling
of China and looked forward to reminding voters about Gore's fund raising
among ethnic Chinese.


Most of these issues have quieted down, and the Senate, in its
overwhelming Sept. 19 vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations
with China, buried the biggest bone of contention between Beijing and
Washington. But that doesn't completely explain why China has disappeared
from the campaign.


As Nicholas Lardy sees it, the challenges of dealing with China are so
large, and the path America wants China to follow is so clear, that these
issues dwarf any differences that Gore and Bush have about the People's
Republic. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says that
these larger goals-integrating China into the world economy, promoting its
stability, and avoiding conflict with Taiwan-will lead the next President
toward a policy very similar to the one that has been followed for the
past 12 years.


"I don't expect much difference" from whomever wins the
election, Lardy said. "I don't think there is any real alternative to
engaging the Chinese, as we have done, to bring them into the
international system." Both Bush and Gore support the central tenets
of U.S. policy: bringing China more fully into the world economy, and the
"one-China" formulation, whereby all sides agree to pretend that
Taiwan is not independent and that reunification must be peaceful.


Gore has given every indication he will continue this approach. When some
questioned whether the Vice President was avoiding the recent debate on
normalized trade with China to please his union supporters who have
concerns about Chinese labor practices, Gore told a union convention that
he would fight for the bill.


The only potential for a big shift in U.S.-China relations lies in a Bush
presidency, and the possibility of a Reaganesque revival, according to
Lardy. Bush has a number of foreign policy advisers who served in his
father's Administration-among them are retired Gen. Colin Powell,
Condoleezza Rice, and Robert Zoellick-and they all share the elder Bush's
commitment to cooperation with China. But the other wing of the foreign
policy team includes several advisers from the Reagan years who take a
more hawkish view-among them are George Schultz, Paul Wolfowitz, and
Richard Burt. Reagan didn't recognize Taiwan's independence, but he did
support the Taiwan Relations Act, which established the principle that the
United States would defend the island from Chinese attack. "I think
it is really hard to say which view is more likely to be the dominant
one" in a new Bush Administration, Lardy said.


Mixed messages about China would be nothing new. Lardy said Clinton often
confounded the Chinese leadership by pushing a hard line on human rights,
then backing off; pushing for a trade deal, then stunning the Chinese by
backing away under pressure from textile makers. The cross currents of
pressure from business, labor, and other interests on China will test the
consistency of any President, he said.-John Maggs


Defense Spending, Reform


If Cuba Gooding Jr. of Jerry Maguire was working in the Pentagon, he'd be
pretty happy regardless of who wins this November. Under his bottom-line
criterion of "show me the money," Bush and Gore both come out
pretty even, and congressional support for more defense spending remains
strong. Although calls by some hawks for massive increases of more than
$50 billion every year will hardly be heeded, no conceivable election
outcome could derail the steady, if slow, annual increases in defense
budgets that began in 1998.


But the bottom line isn't actually the bottom line: How much you spend is
less important than what you spend it on. And here is one of the unnoticed
ironies of the 2000 campaign. On the question of total spending, both
candidates represent the status quo of gradual increases. Yet on the
fundamental issue of reorganizing the military for 21st-century war, there
is no status quo candidate: Both Bush and Gore have embraced the idea of
reform-and in office, either man could have a real chance to deliver
substantial change.


"There is a surprising consensus among defense intellectuals and
military leaders about the outlines of this nascent military
transformation," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the
defense-industry-supported Lexington Institute. The
"transformation" in question is from the Industrial Age to the
Information Age; from reliance on heavy metal-massive barrages, thick
armor, and bureaucratic chains of command-to microchips-smart weapons,
stealth, and computer networks. The reform enthusiasts argue that the
result will be a force that is deadlier, more agile, and far easier to
deploy to distant battlefields. And after years of laboring in the
wilderness of academia or the bowels of the Pentagon bureaucracy, those
enthusiasts, come January, might actually be in the White House,
regardless who wins.


It wasn't inevitable that it would work out this way. Pork barrel politics
in the Capitol, and military conservatism in the Pentagon, have slowed
reform for years, and there is no political percentage in taking on
entrenched interests over such an arcane, complex issue. But a group of
defense intellectuals has coalesced around a receptive George W. Bush. So
instead of preaching safely to the strong-defense choir, Bush, while at
The Citadel military college in Septenber 1999 to deliver his first major
policy address, took time to lament: "Our military is still organized
... for Industrial Age operations, rather than for Information Age
battles."


Since then, Bush has shifted his rhetoric to the traditional Republican
mantra that Clinton has weakened the military, and Bush has tapped as his
running mate Dick Cheney, a former Defense Secretary considered to be
skeptical of the "transformation" arguments: "He's much
more a status quo kind of guy," said Tom Donnelly of the Project for
a New American Century. Nevertheless, the radicals and their ideas
remain.


The Gore camp, meanwhile, played defense on defense, echoing some of
Bush's reform ideas while calling others too radical. But then came
Lieberman. For quite unrelated reasons, Gore happened to choose as his
running mate the Senate's strongest advocate of military
transformation.


"I don't think he changes the campaign, because then you would have
to be critical of the Clinton Administration [for its slow progress], but
I do think he does change it substantially after the election," said
former Pentagon official Lawrence J. Korb. As a leading member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieberman has pushed the Pentagon to
experiment more boldly, and he demonstrates a real grasp of and passion
for the details of military reform. In contrast to the well-staffed cadre
of defense intellectuals around Bush, Lieberman is a cadre of one-but he
would be at the heart of the Administration. So while real defense reform
will always be an uphill battle, both Gore and Bush would give it a
fighting chance.-Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.


High Tech


Bush and Gore's platforms on Internet-related high-technology issues are
similar enough to mute industry worries over the election.


Both candidates celebrate the Internet economy and its entrepreneurs. In
front of high-tech audiences, Bush emphasizes the free market, tax cuts,
and reforms in education and tort law, while Gore touts a mix of federal
spending on technology, a focus on the "digital divide," and
minimal federal regulation. Both candidates have downplayed political
conflicts over Internet pornography, privacy, and "open access"
to Internet content. Both have called for tougher privacy rules for
traditional medical and financial information, but seem willing to allow
looser rules and industry self-regulation in the online sector.


Although the candidates' more partisan allies are eager to emphasize their
differences on Internet policy, those differences would likely be dulled
in the legislative arena. For example, one industry official noted that
Gore's close ties to trial lawyers will make it more difficult for the
high-tech industry to escape expensive lawsuits. As the Internet economy
grows, he said, lawyers will push for rules easing the way for lawsuits
over privacy, deals gone sour, and hacker attacks. But Wade Randlett, an
Internet executive and a Gore fund-raiser, pooh-poohs this concern, saying
that "all the [tort reform] issues we have worked on, we have
won."


On some of the most contentious issues, both candidates have avoided
taking strong positions, and that reluctance makes it unlikely that either
one would take the Internet economy in a different direction.


For example, says Jeff Chester, the executive director at the Center for
Media Education, both candidates have remained silent on the fundamental
issue of Internet "open access" rules. Under rules inherited
from the era of telephone regulation, Internet service providers such as
AT&T cannot prevent their customers from accessing other companies'
Internet data, entertainment, and services using telephone links. But as
more Internet services are delivered through cable TV links,
profit-seeking cable companies may try to fence off portions of the
Internet, Chester said. However, government agencies now under Gore's
influence are prodding large cable companies to open up their
networks.


At Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology, Director Jamie Love says
the candidates are very similar. "They suck up to people with big
bucks in e-commerce," he said. But he also points out that Bush's
election would stir Democrats to oppose wiretap and privacy policies they
now support meekly because they are pushed by Clinton's White House.
Chester echoed that prediction: "It appears that traditional
public-interest liberal issues appear to develop a larger constituency and
more funding when the Republicans are in power."-Neil Munro


Gun Control


Bush and Gore have devoted plenty of time on the stump and lots of space
on their Web sites to their visions for gun control. But the winner's
agenda may not have much real impact after Election Day.


Daniel D. Polsby, a George Mason University law professor and the author
of "The False Promise of Gun Control," says that although
President Clinton shaped gun control during his watch, its "political
utility may have been expended." The reality is that forces
independent of the White House could change the gun control landscape,
namely litigation in the lower courts. The states and cities that have
sued gun manufacturers want to hold them liable under public nuisance and
deceptive business practice laws and to collect damages for the costs of
gun violence.


Kristen Rand, a lawyer for the Violence Policy Center, which advocates
holding firearms to the health and safety standards of other consumer
products, has studied the pending gun lawsuits. She says that until there
is a federal agency with health and safety authority over guns, litigation
will have the greatest impact because it exposes the industry's
"questionable practices."


State-level action will quite likely outpace federal movements toward gun
control. The states are moving to establish handgun licensing and
registration and to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons, according
to Mark Pertschuk, legislative director for the Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence.


Others predict that Congress, not the White House, will lead on gun
control. Jim Kessler, policy director for Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.,
points to an interesting trend: "Over the last few cycles, new
members [of Congress] have been more inclined to support gun control than
the members that they are replacing." He believes that, regardless of
the electoral outcome, there will be a "tide of pro-gun-control in
Congress."


David Kopel, associate policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
says that if there is either a Republican President or Congress, then the
top priority will be to remove the ability of states and cities to sue the
gun manufacturers. If there is a Democrat in the White House, he expects
the push for gun control legislation would be moderate, "because the
White House would rather have the gun issue than gun legislation,"
and because lawmakers fear the backlash from pro-gun voters.


Gore could use the President's bully pulpit to push handgun registration,
licensing, and a "junk gun" ban. Bush has said there are enough
gun restrictions to vigorously prosecute criminals, and he wants to
protect "law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights" to keep
and carry guns for self-defense.


Rand says one aspect of the gun control issue is often overlooked: the
"changing demographic of gun ownership." The dwindling numbers
of new gun owners, she says, means that over time-stretching beyond the
next President's term-there won't be as much opposition to gun regulation.
"We're willing to wait them out to get more meaningful gun
control," she said.-Elisabeth Frater


Social Security


There is only one reliable scenario under which the next White House
occupant would have a significant influence over the Social Security
system-sand that's if Bush is victorious on Nov. 7 and can join forces
with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. And even under that
scenario, there would be numerous caveats about Bush's electoral mandate,
the power of minority Democrats to block elements of his private-accounts
proposal, the health of the economy and financial markets, voter support
for Social Security changes, and the outlook for Bush's campaign plan for
$1.3 trillion in tax cuts (which would have to progress through the same
congressional committees as would Social Security legislation).


In other words, much could be at stake for Social Security depending on
who is President, but primarily if it is a Bush reform plan that meets
willing lawmakers. If Bush has to work with a divided Congress, or
Democratic majorities, his plan to allow younger workers to invest some of
their Social Security taxes in market accounts they control themselves
would face slim chances. Gore's ideas for Social Security-to credit
interest savings on the debt to the system and to add a
government-matched, tax-free 401(k)-style investment option-are considered
less controversial but would probably need Democratic majorities to become
law. Faced with a Republican-led Congress, Gore would veto the GOP's
private-investment legislation, and his veto would probably stand unless
enough Democrats joined forces with Republicans.


Because Bush and Gore have dramatically differing ideas about the future
of Social Security, including how to craft new investment opportunities
for workers, it is tempting to believe that White House leadership, come
2001, will make a significant impact on the outcome of the debate.
Tempting, but speculative, for two simple reasons: First, in the 65 years
since the Social Security system was created as an anti-poverty program
for the elderly during the Great Depression, Washington has never made
significant alterations to the system in the absence of imminent
insolvency. Thanks to black ink in the federal budget, Social Security
insolvency is at least several decades away. And second, a legislative
consensus will be tough to muster without a significant majority in both
houses of Congress that is working supportively with the President of that
party on reform ideas backed firmly by voters.


In terms of launching an offensive for change, the President "makes a
huge amount of difference, if you assume that Bush captures the White
House and the Republicans retain control of Congress, even narrowly,"
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer said, "because I think
this will mean the President will have to submit a plan to Congress that
involves individual accounts.... But do I think that something will go
through? The answer is no.


"There will be a real debate on the issue," he continued,
"because this is one of those things, like a major tax cut, that the
President will have to deliver on. But then you get into all sorts of very
different predictions about the future."


One of the complicating factors for Bush would be if he opted to try to
push both a major tax cut and Social Security reform through Congress at
the same time as part of his honeymoon agenda. It would be a huge load for
a new Congress, even a friendly one. There are certainly Democratic
enthusiasts in Congress for private accounts who would help Bush, but they
don't support Bush's expensive giveback plan on taxes, which locks up
future budget surpluses that may never materialize. At least one
Democratic economic analyst speculated that the defeat of Bush's tax plan,
or a dramatic downsizing of it, could improve chances for Social Security
private accounts. "They might almost hope the tax cut fails,"
the analyst said of Bush's team, noting that Bush could turn around and
blame the Democrats, then convince U.S. workers that his private-accounts
plan is almost as good as a tax benefit if they were permitted to earn
richer market returns on their Social Security contributions over a
lifetime.


For Social Security reform, there are a lot of "ifs."-Alexis
Simendinger


The Uninsured


Both Bush and Gore have proposed plans to shrink the growing ranks of the
uninsured-now at 44 million Americans and counting. But their differing
approaches could matter less than the emerging congressional consensus on
the issue.


Gore has focused on expanding government programs, such as Medicaid and
the states' Children's Health Insurance Program, while Bush has emphasized
the use of federal tax credits to encourage the purchase of private
insurance.


Members of Congress explored these two approaches earlier this year, and
there were signs that doing some of each may be politically feasible.
"We already have bipartisan agreement, and that's on the use of tax
credits to expand health insurance," said Robert Moffit, director of
domestic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.


Indeed, some of the most liberal Democrats and some of the most
conservative Republicans worked on the tax credit concept this year. Rep.
Fortney H. "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader
Dick Armey, R-Texas, tried their hands at fashioning a bipartisan tax
credit proposal. They abandoned the mission when they couldn't agree on
all of the details, but they ended up writing a joint editorial in The
Washington Post promoting the concept as a potential cure for the growing
problem of the uninsured.


Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer advocacy
group, cautioned, however, that concern from employers, insurers, and
organized labor would keep any final tax credit bill from making too
drastic a change. Pollack said he's particularly concerned about plans
like Bush's, which he says would move insurance away from an
employer-based system. "Many employers feel they've made large
contributions in insurance ... and labor unions feel they've made their
biggest advances in health benefits. It's the cornerstone of many
collective bargaining units."


Gore has proposed reducing the number of uninsured Americans in increments
by first expanding coverage through existing government programs. At the
centerpiece of his blueprint is a proposal to enroll more children, and
some parents, in the state Children's Health Insurance Program and in
Medicaid. He would expand state CHIP eligibility to include children
living at up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level and make states
responsible for enrolling more eligible children.


Gore also wants to offer a tax credit equivalent to 25 percent of a
person's health insurance costs to help spur the purchase of private
insurance.


With Bush, the emphasis is reversed. The focal point of his plan is the
tax credit. He would give people without employer-sponsored health
insurance an annual tax credit of up to $1,000 per individual and $2,000
per family to cover up to 90 percent of the cost of health insurance. The
subsidy would vary depending upon income.


Bush places less emphasis on CHIP; he wants to give states more
flexibility in administering the program and allow states to expand CHIP
to other eligible people, including some parents. Bush would offer no new
money for expanded CHIP coverage.


Moffit, for one, predicts the issue of the uninsured will return next
year, even though it's received relatively little attention on the
campaign trail. "Many of the problems are getting worse," he
said.-Marilyn Werber Serafini


TRADE


President Bush would beat the drums for trade. President Gore, taking his
marching orders from organized labor, would slow the pace of international
commerce.


A no-brainer, right? Wrong. In fact, trade isn't likely to be a priority
for the next occupant of the Oval Office. And though Bush would probably
put more effort into a trade agenda than Gore, there is no reason to
believe that either one could produce major breakthroughs in America's
trading relations with other countries. That's because neither Gore nor
Bush will enter the White House with a mandate to make major changes in
existing trade policy. Neither has made trade a campaign issue, and public
opinion polls show that trade is an irrelevant, single-digit voter
concern.


Now that China is on its way to becoming a member of the World Trade
Organization, trade is not high on the business community's agenda,
either. The business community has its hands full simply supplying the
booming U.S. domestic economy. And the United States, Japan, Europe, and
the developing world aren't close to resolving their conflicting goals for
the future of the global trading system.


In any event, a presumably divided Congress would be a considerable
obstacle to any trade initiatives. The party that controls the House is
likely to do so by a razor-thin margin. Given internal party divisions on
trade, it is unlikely that a majority could be mustered for fast-track
trade negotiating authority or for any other major trade proposals.
Consideration of such legislation may have to await the results of the
2002 congressional elections, assuming those produce definitive majorities
in either chamber.


Consequently, the next Administration's trade agenda should largely be
confined to issues that do not require Capitol Hill's OK and should
depend, even more than usual, on the skills of the next President's trade
czar. If the next U.S. Trade Representative or head of the National
Economic Council has a bit of vision and is blessed with astute political
skills, and if the White House gives him or her room to maneuver, some
progress could be made in resolving or containing mushrooming trade
disputes with Europe, crafting a new framework for Washington's trading
relationship with Japan, and fleshing out plans for free trade in the
Western Hemisphere.


If the trade portfolio is handed out as a payoff for someone's help in the
campaign or goes as an afterthought to a party stalwart who needs a job,
it may be a quiet four years in the trade arena.-Bruce Stokes


Science


Although some science advocates say that government funds for research,
along with the freedom to experiment on stem cells extracted from human
embryos, are at stake in this election, it appears unlikely that the Nov.
7 outcome will make a substantial difference to the overall progress of
science in federal laboratories, universities, and corporate research
centers.


Both Bush and Gore are promising to double funding for the National
Institutes of Health and to up the budgets for other research. Bush favors
defense research and promises an extra $20 billion, whereas Gore favors
environmental technology programs.


The candidates' more controversial positions would probably lose much of
their edge in the routine rough-and-tumble of Washington deal-making. For
example, Gore has taken an aggressive stance during the campaign against
the science-intensive pharmaceutical companies and has threatened their
profits and research funds by urging deep cuts in drug prices. But
"after Nov. 7, and after the dust has settled ... we can probably
return to a constructive dialogue," said a pharmaceutical industry
official. One reason for such confidence, he said, is Gore's past
cooperation with the industry. Gore has helped to streamline the Food and
Drug Administration and to boost federal funding for medical
research.


Bush has promised more money for science, but his promises will be
difficult to fulfill, given his commitment to broad-based tax cuts, some
science advocates say. And although Gore has promised smaller tax cuts, he
urges more spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other nonscientific
programs. Science advocates complain that Bush's tax cuts and Gore's
spending initiatives would have the same effect-both plans make it harder
for the government to appropriate funds for research in health care,
space, physics, math, computer science, geology, the environment, and a
host of other areas.


Gore supports funding federal research into stem cells taken from human
embryos, whereas Bush has promised to ban such funding. But stem-cell
research is burgeoning primarily in the private sector, and there is no
evidence that Bush would try to restrict it there. At most, Bush's lack of
support at the federal level could slow private investment in stem-cell
research and increase the prospect that states would apply some
restrictions to commercial research. Bush's position could also increase
the courts' tolerance of such restrictions, but anti-abortion-rights
advocates, such as Teresa Wagner, a policy analyst at the Family Research
Council, are skeptical that Bush will try to reform the legal
establishment by appointing and backing judges sympathetic to their
cause.


Judges have recently struck down laws that place restrictions on research,
and most experts presume they'll continue to do so. For example, an
Arizona law banning research that uses organs from aborted fetuses was
struck down in September 1999, according to a Reagan-appointed judge,
because of the vagueness of critical terms such as
"experimentation" and "investigation." Two federal
appeals courts and a federal district court have struck down comparable
laws in Illinois, Louisiana, and Utah. In early October, the Arizona case
will be appealed before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


If the appeals court rejects the district court's judgment, the plaintiffs
will ask the appeals court to strike the law interfering with a woman's
reproductive choices, and with everyone's right to make health care
decisions, said Bebe Anderson, the lead plaintiffs attorney who works for
the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.


Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University,
said that judges can support some restrictions on biomedical research such
as cloning, and opponents of unrestricted research must be smart enough to
write restrictions in ways that don't collide with free speech or
reproductive rights.-Neil Munro


Alexis Simendinger

National Journal