POLITICS: What's at StakeThere is at least one person in Washington--admittedly biased--who againand again delivers one prevailing political warning he hopes voters willheed on Nov. 7: Do not be complacent; so much is at stake. Bill Clintonfrets that the good times he believes his Administration helped deliver toAmericans also dulled their senses to the distinctions between Al Gore'sbrand of presidential governing, which he wholeheartedly endorses, andthat of George W. Bush. Clinton also argues that the Texas governor hascleverly cloaked his conservative ideology in jingles benignenough to sound persuasively like the competition. "Blur, blur,blur," Clinton has complained."The temptation, first of all, is to think, `Well, things are rockingalong here and this is not the biggest election I've ever had to facebecause things are going so well.' And then to feel, because of thestrategy adopted by Gov. Bush ... `Well, there's maybe not that muchdifference anyway,' " the President told a Washington Postinterviewer in August. "We shouldn't be fuzzy-headed here that therearen't profound differences that won't have profound consequences for howwe live and how we go into the future."There is another political figure who agrees that a lot is at stake thisfall, but he disagrees that candidates Gore and Bush are up to the kind ofleadership that can successfully change policy where it's neededmost."Corporate power [is] tying the hands of both parties, funding bothparties, controlling our government, distorting our public budgets intomassive military and corporate welfare allocations instead of forchildren's health and education and the environment--there is not thatmuch difference," Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Naderwarned last month. "Is that the choice for the American people,between the bad and the worse?"Interestingly, voters are pretty satisfied with their choice ofpresidential candidates--more so than they were four years ago, accordingto a July survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People andthe Press. They apparently disagree with Nader that they face a choicebetween bad and worse. They also lean toward a desire for continuityrather than change-and by mid-September, Pew reported, that feeling wasbenefiting Gore. Fifty-two percent of registered voters polled by Pew inlate August and early September said they were satisfied with the state ofthe nation, while 42 percent said they were dissatisfied.Although no single policy issue grips the electorate, the most importantpriorities for the next President, in order, are Social Security andMedicare; education; health care; morality; the economy; and taxes,according to Pew's survey of almost 2,000 registered voters. And whenasked whether Bush or Gore came closest to "my opinions on the mostimportant issues to me," 48 percent said Gore, 39 percent said Bush,5 percent answered neither, and 2 percent said both equally. Thoseall-important swing voters who are expected to make such a difference onNov. 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 personalqualities and character.So is Clinton correct that this election could have "profoundconsequences for how we live"? Is there, indeed, a lot at stake forthe country depending on who takes the oath of office in January?Certainly, the two major party candidates differ in their thinking oneverything from the Supreme Court and energy policy, to abortion rightsand missile shields. But to take stock of the election's stakes is notmerely to measure the disagreements between Bush and Gore over some ofthose key issues that voters are watching, such as how to safeguard SocialSecurity for the next generation; whether to add prescription drugcoverage to Medicare; where federal dollars should help public schools;how to give more people health insurance and better health care; what todo with federal budget surpluses, and how to cut federal taxes.In this report, National Journal has asked a different question: In whatareas is the new President likely to have the most sway to influencenational policies? In other words, taking into account what we know rightnow about executive power, world conditions, and expectations forCongress, which policy arenas are most likely to feel the influence ofeither a Bush or a Gore presidency? National Journal reporters came upwith an even dozen that best illustrate the argument that this electioncould carry significant national repercussions for years to come. Inanother 10 arenas--some of them centerpieces of the Bush and Gorecampaigns--it is argued that the election results will make littledifference. In some of those cases, Bush and Gore have substantial policydisagreements but relatively little ability to implement their proposals.In other cases, the policy positions of the two candidates aresimilar.Of the issues listed as most important to voters (and often most talkedabout by the candidates), only two appear on National Journal's even-dozenlist of issues thought to be most in play as a result of the election. Taxcuts and Medicare are definitely on that list--where voters think theybelong-as are second-tier issues such as labor policy, reproductive andgay rights, foreign policy, and environmental protection.But although voters are keenly interested in Social Security, the nextWhite House occupant may not have much success in reshaping a retirementsafety net without a consensus in Congress, an approving public, and somesort of galvanizing event that would make the present seem like a bettertime for change than the future. Those "ifs" place SocialSecurity on the "not-a-lot-at-stake" side of the ledger, even ifBush has put more into play than Gore has, with his proposal to graduallyshift younger workers into private investment accounts, which the publicsays it finds appealing in today's stock market climate.Similarly, there appears to be a gulf between Bush and Gore on educationpolicy (should parents, for instance, be able to use federal money to taketheir children out of failing public schools and put them in privateschools?), but it is likely that a divided Congress would require changesthat cling more to the politically vote-getting middle. Thus, theinfluence of the next President would be diminished. On healthinsurance-an issue of great importance to the 44 million Americans whodon't have it-Congress has already signaled a willingness to blend thedifferences between Bush's enthusiasm for tax credits to help purchaseinsurance and Gore's desire to expand existing health programs, such asMedicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which areadministered through the states. Therefore, on the question of theuninsured, future changes do not appear to hang on which candidatewins.Clinton is challenging voters "to imagine what is it you want Americato look like in 10 years" and to ask, "What are thechoices?" National Journal is adding a third question that may bejust as significant: What difference is the next President really likelyto make?Here are 12 issues where the impact of the new President may be relativelylarge.Interventionism, MultilateralismBush articulates a foreign policy more nakedly assertive of Americaninterests than does Gore. If elected, Bush has promised to reject severalmultilateral arms control and environmental treaties, and to eschew thedeployment of U.S. troops to crises on the periphery of America's vitalnational interests.Conversely, Gore has been instrumental in crafting for the ClintonAdministration a foreign policy that embraces multilateral agreements, iscomfortable with international institutions such as the United Nations,and is assertive in using the U.S. military to contain regional crises andease humanitarian disasters.Both approaches to foreign affairs carry advantages and pose significantrisks. By rejecting widely accepted global arms control efforts, Bushrisks alienating close American allies and exacerbating widespread fearsoverseas about U.S. "unilateralism" and hubris. Gore's moreassertive interventionism, on the other hand, risks overextending analready stretched-thin U.S. military in a series of mini-quagmires thatcould sap the will of the American public for sustained globalleadership.Bush has promised that his Administration will launch "an immediatereview" of U.S. troop commitments in "dozens of countries,"with an eye to reducing their role in peacekeeping and other nonessentialoperations around the world. He intends to persuade the European allies toassume all on-the-ground peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo, aproposal that has strong support in the Republican-controlled Congress buthas been repeatedly rejected by European capitals.Bush has also said that he will refuse to send U.S. troops to stop aRwanda-type genocide or "ethnic cleansing" unless vital U.S.strategic interests were at stake. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's chief foreignaffairs adviser, said: "There are other instruments of U.S. influencethat can be brought to bear. The governor has a strong sense that U.S.military forces are special, and they should be reserved for thosecontingencies tied directly to America's national interests."Gore, meanwhile, has been even more hawkish than Clinton in hiswillingness to use U.S. troops to counter ethnic cleansing and quellinternational crises in such places as Bosnia and Kosovo. Recently, U.S.Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke-a close Gore ally whocould become Secretary of State-has endorsed reforms that would strengthenthe United Nations' ability to intercede decisively in internationalcrises with peacekeeping troops. The proposal could entail more U.S.troops and more U.S. money.Holbrooke rejects the criticism of congressional Republicans that suchpeacekeeping missions amount to "international social work.""The alternative to engagement is noninvolvement, and theconsequences of doing nothing are usually that the crisis gets much worseand eventually costs the United States and the rest of the world much moremoney on the back end, through refugee relief and humanitarianassistance," Holbrooke told National Journal.On international treaties, Bush would also diverge from Clinton-and-Gorepractice. Bush applauded the Senate's rejection last year of theComprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and he has promised toabrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it cannot be renegotiatedwith the Russians to allow for the deployment of a massive nationalmissile defense system. Bush also rejects the Kyoto global- warming treatythat Gore supports.Bush advisers characterize the Clinton-Gore team as too eager to sign onto multilateral treaties that run counter to a strict interpretation ofAmerican interests. Bush views "multilateral agreements andinternational organizations as tools to exercise American interests andachieve our goals, while Clinton and Gore seem to view them as goals inand of themselves," Rice said.Conversely, Gore has promised that if elected he will resubmit the CTBTfor Senate ratification, fight for Kyoto, and pay the United States' backdues to the United Nations in full. "Gore is very comfortable withthe idea that it is often in the national interest to embrace multilateralagreements and organizations," a senior Gore adviser said. "Thecaveat is that he is willing to reject multilateral agreements when theyare not in our interest, as he did with the proposed international landmine treaty. Bush and his advisers, on the other hand, seem to be phobicabout engaging with the rest of the world."-James KitfieldThe CourtsChoosing federal judges and Justices is among the most important powers ofany President. It's especially so now, because the Supreme Court and manyof the 13 federal appellate courts (which have the last word in the vastmajority of cases) are closely balanced between liberals andconservatives, and because Bush and Gore have dramatically different plansfor them. Gore has vowed to nominate judges similar to the late ThurgoodMarshall, one of the most liberal Justices in history. Bush prefers judgessimilar to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, perhaps the mostconservative Justices since the 1930s.Replacing just one of the more conservative Justices with a liberal, orone of the more liberal Justices with a conservative, could sharply shiftthe Supreme Court's direction to the left or the right on such politicallycharged issues as race-based and gender-based affirmative actionpreferences, abortion rights, gay rights, religion, federalism, federalregulatory 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 embracerace and gender preferences; ensconce abortion rights more deeply thanever; strike down some forms of public aid to religious schools, perhapsincluding tuition vouchers; expand gay rights and commensurately curb thefreedoms of speech and association of groups opposing homosexuality; putan end to the five more-conservative Justices' efforts to curb the powerof Congress to federalize routine crimes, land-use regulations, and othermatters traditionally within the domain of the states; defer to lawmakingby federal regulatory agencies; and smile on campaign finance restrictionsthat might now be deemed unconstitutional.A conservative Bush appointee, on the other hand, might well move theCourt to sweep away the thousands of federal, state, and local affirmativeaction preferences that have survived the current majority's hesitantmoves to curb them; uphold some restrictions on late-term abortion; blesstuition vouchers for religious schools and other programs affordingbenefits to religious and nonreligious groups alike; give precedence tothe First Amendment rights of private groups to exclude gays and otherpeople with whom they don't want to be associated; further restrict thepowers of Congress and federal regulatory agencies such as theEnvironmental Protection Agency, especially when they affect states'rights; and strike down any far-reaching new campaign financerestrictions.There is not much chance, however-for all the publicity-that Bush couldengineer the two-vote swing necessary to end the Court's protection of avirtually unlimited right to abortion during the first six months ofpregnancy, especially in light of the Senate's likely rejection of anynominees it considers too conservative (especially on abortion) or tooliberal.Although not one of the Justices has hinted that he or she might step downsoon, it seems reasonably likely that one or more will do so in the nextfour years. The oldest are the liberal John Paul Stevens (an energetic80), the conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (a sturdy75-year-old who turns 76 on Oct. 1), the centrist Sandra Day O'Connor (ahealthy 70), and the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who is 67 and recoveringfrom colon cancer).In any event, if history is any guide, the next President will be able tonominate about one judge a week to fill vacancies in the 655 district and179 appellate judgeships. Sixty-four slots are vacant now. Although lessvisible than the Supreme Court, the appellate and district courtscollectively may exercise even more power. That's because the SupremeCourt reviews only about one in every 1,000 decisions by the appealscourts, leaving appellate judges with broad discretion to interpret thelaw-sometimes without clear guidance. Often the result is aliberal-conservative split on contentious policy issues. The mostlyliberal Carter and Clinton appointees and more-conservative Reagan andBush appointees on the 13 appeals courts are close enough in numbers togive the next President an opportunity to engineer either liberal orconservative dominance.-Stuart Taylor Jr.The EnvironmentIt's hard to get past the cliches that depict Bush as a slash-and-burnindustry apologist and Gore as an industry-hating environmental extremist.Both of those caricatures obscure the two fundamentally different visionsof federal environmental policy that either man would be able to implementas President.Bush embraces a Texas-style federalism that would transfer importantdecisions on pollution control, land management, and species protection tothe states. Bush, whose aides say he never ranked the environment as histop priority, often handled serious pollution problems in Texas withvoluntary industry programs. Bush's appointees to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the Interior Department would be able to use theflexibility built into federal environmental laws to impose similarvoluntary, state-driven controls.Although Bush says he's convinced that the earth is warming, he says hewill reject the Kyoto climate change treaty, which requires the UnitedStates and other industrialized nations to dramatically curtail theemissions of global-warming gases. Gore and the Clinton Administrationsupport that treaty but have not submitted it to the Senate forratification, because of congressional opposition to its terms.Bush's approach to managing federal lands would differ considerably fromthe Administration's. He has vowed to reverse President Clinton's decisionto ban road-building in untouched portions of the national forests. He'salso criticized Clinton for further protecting some federal lands byelevating them to national monument status. Congressional aides in bothparties question whether Bush could repeal those monument designationswithout congressional action, but they note that Bush's appointees couldrewrite monument management plans to allow logging, mining, and othereconomic activities. Bush also wants to repair facilities in the nation'snational parks rather than add to the inventory of federally protectedlands.Bush advocates giving the states more responsibility for monitoring andpreserving endangered species. Rather than having the federal governmentimpose new restrictions on ecologically sensitive lands, Bush proposescreating conservation partnerships between the federal government, states,local officials, and private landowners. He also promises to open morefederal lands to the oil industry, although his proposal to allow new oiland gas development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge wouldrequire congressional action.Those policies differ remarkably from the proposals espoused by Gore, whosees the federal government as the chief engineer in the effort to reducepollution and preserve more ecologically sensitive open lands. He supportsClinton's environmental edicts, and, in fact, played a key role indeveloping many of them. Gore said he would go further as President topreserve land and crack down on polluters. If those actions depend oncongressional cooperation, however, Gore's more aggressive programs arelikely to be tempered.In the economic agenda he outlined in September, Gore provided anambitious list of his federal environmental priorities, which heavilyemphasize tax incentives, research initiatives, and regulatoryprograms-many of which he'd have to work with Congress to adopt. Forexample, a President Gore would have to negotiate with the Hill to passhis proposed tax credits for homeowners and businesses that buyenergy-efficient products. But Gore would be able to block Republicans inCongress from opening new oil development in the Alaskan refuge or off theU.S. coasts.Gore says he wants the federal government to crack down on pollutioncoming from the nation's oldest coal-fired power plants and from miningoperations, and his environmental appointees would have the authority toexpand controls in those arenas. They could also follow through on Gore'spromises not only to stop road-building in untouched portions of thenational forests, but also to ban logging in those regions.-MargaretKrizInternet ServiceOne of the few high-technology issues that the next President will decideis whether the Baby Bell phone companies should be allowed to compete inthe marketplace as providers of high-speed Internet service.Like other telecommunications policy issues, the broadband debate is notpartisan. But Bush and Gore apparently hold opposing views on the issue,according to interviews with their aides and lobbyists on both sides ofthe issue.If elected President, Gore would maintain Clinton Administration policyand oppose efforts to favor the Bells through an overhaul of theTelecommunications Act. A President Bush, however, would be more likely tosupport efforts to strip the Bells of burdensome Federal CommunicationsCommission regulations written into the 1996 law.Neither candidate, however, has spoken directly about the issue on thecampaign trail-and each would face tremendous pressure from both insideand outside of his Administration to change his stance.At issue is a major section of the Telecommunications Act that hasdiscouraged the Bells from building state-of-the-art broadband networks tozip Internet traffic coast-to-coast. The law does this in two ways. First,it forbids the regional Bell operating companies from transmitting voiceor data traffic across long-distance boundaries until the FCC deems thatthe former monopolies have opened their local phone markets tocompetition. (In the four years since President Clinton signed the billinto law, the FCC has approved just two applications to enter thelong-distance market-Verizon in New York and SBC in Texas.) The 1996 law,the Bells say, also discourages the Bells from building billion-dollarnetworks by requiring them to share key parts of their computers and lineswith their competitors.This year, legislation to unleash the Bells earned the support of amajority of House members and dozens of Senators. But House CommerceCommittee Chairman Tom Bliley, R-Va., a longtime ally of Bell rivalAT&T Corp., bottled the measure up in his committee.Bliley is retiring from Congress, however, and that leaves the legislationin the hands of Bell allies, including John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairmanof the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Reps.John D. Dingell, D-Mich., W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-La., andMichael G. Oxley, R-Ohio-the three most likely successors to Bliley atHouse Commerce.Though powerful foes remain in Congress, supporters believe they canmuscle 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 thelegislation because he credits the 1996 law with igniting thetelecommunications revolution. "It would be surprising if hisposition on issues he took the lead on in the Clinton Administration wasdramatically different in a Gore Administration," said Scott Cleland,CEO of the Precursor Group, a Washington consulting firm that specializesin high-tech issues.Still, Gore would face intense pressure to sign the bill. Gore has closeties to BellSouth Corp., a strong backer of the bill and one of the Gorecampaign's top contributors. Furthermore, one of Gore's closest advisers,Roy Neel, is the head of the Bells' lobbying arm, the U.S. TelecomAssociation. Neel, who has spent years advocating broadband legislation onCapitol Hill, is considered to be a likely choice for Gore's chief ofstaff.A President Bush, meanwhile, likely would sign the legislation, to thedelight of Texas-based Baby Bell SBC. But like Gore, Bush would faceintense pressure to reject the bill.AT&T, the bill's fiercest opponent, has been one of Bush's topcontributors, and the company's chief lobbyist, James Cicconi, was a WhiteHouse aide in his father's White House. And the man whom Bush often looksto for advice on telecommunications matters--Pat Wood, Texas' top utilityregulator-opposes the broadband measures pending in Congress.-BrodyMullinsTax CutsWith the budget surplus ballooning, tax cuts are almost certain to beenacted after the election. But the next President will have significantinfluence in determining their size and shape.The two candidates have starkly different positions on the issue: Bush hasembraced a sweeping tax cut of $483 billion over five years, includingfundamental changes in the tax rate structure, while Gore has pushed fortargeted, Clinton-style tax cuts that he argues benefit the middle classmore than Bush's.If Bush wins, expect him to send a broad-based tax cut proposal to CapitolHill, where some form of it is likely to pass. Even if the Democratsnarrowly control Congress, sufficient numbers of theirmoderate-to-conservative members conceivably could go along with somebroad-based cuts.If Gore wins, the prospects for a broad-based tax cut are bleak. Even ifthe Republicans controlled Congress and they tried to send him suchlegislation, he probably would veto it, just as Clinton has. And theRepublicans probably still would not have big enough majorities tooverride presidential vetoes.Bush, who argues that everyone deserves tax relief, complains that Gore'sproposal requires people to fit into certain categories to have theirtaxes 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 33percent.Gore proposes no such across-the-board cut. He contends that the Bush planis fiscally irresponsible and that the wealthy would be its biggestbeneficiaries. Gore would offer taxpayers specific, targeted cuts, such asexpanding the Earned-Income Tax Credit by as much as $500 for familieswith three or more children.One thing is for certain: As the budget surplus grows, politicians will bemore eager to spend at least part of it on tax cuts. "Politicians aregoing to become more comfortable with the surplus," said Robert D.Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. "While Republicans andDemocrats disagree on the details, they don't disagree over the politicalbenefit of spending the surplus."And while the differences over tax cuts have stalled legislation thisyear, many of those differences will evaporate after the election."There are enough areas in which the differences only loom large inan election year," Reischauer said.-David BaumannOverseas BailoutsIt might be the most important policy difference that won't be discussedin the debates, or any other time during the fall campaign: George Bushand his top advisers envision a very different (and diminished) role forthe United States in riding to the rescue of other countries threatenedwith economic ruin.This issue may seem a little remote to the interests of most voters, butnot if you accept the basic premise behind the Clinton Administration'shandling of such bailouts. Most voters see preserving America's prosperityas the central issue of the campaign, and this prosperity was directlythreatened 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 ofbillions of dollars churning through the banks of a handful of economiesthat were on the brink of default. No one disputes that the bailoutshelped, but a mighty argument continues over whether the rescues wereneeded, and whether the risk to the U.S. economy from the crises justifiedthe risk to U.S. funds committed to the effort. Some critics argue thatthe bailouts will cause even more financial turmoil. Bush hasn't had muchto say on this topic, but his party and his top advisers have.The architect of the Clinton approach was Lawrence Summers, who was aTreasury Department undersecretary in 1995 when Mexico's economy wasbrought to the brink by unwise, short-term borrowing from abroad. Summers,now Treasury Secretary, is the odds-on favorite to continue in that postin a Gore Administration. Gore has had nothing to say on the stump aboutthe Asia financial crisis, but he has been a vocal supporter of bailoutsand aid for Russia, and his close ties to Summers indicate that he wouldcontinue the Clinton approach to international financialmanagement.To get a fix on the likely approach taken by a Bush Administration, it isimportant to note the recent swing in GOP thinking. Before 1995,Republicans had generally taken an internationalist, pro-Wall Streetposition on matters of international finance. But after the GOP takeoverof Congress, the new Republican leaders were generally suspicious ofmultilateral cooperation and big-money interests. They convened acommission, chaired by economist Allan Meltzer, that earlier this yearissued a report calling for fundamental changes that would end theInternational Monetary Fund's role as the leader of international rescueefforts.Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, has long been allied withthese efforts. In 1998, in testimony to Congress, Lindsey ridiculed theidea that IMF lending will somehow safeguard U.S. exports and jobs."The role of the IMF in protecting our economy from a breakdown ofour banking system is negligible," he said. Lindsey is especiallyscornful of the role the IMF has played in rescuing any country in crisis.This indemnification of risk, he argued, only encourages unwise behaviorin the future.Lindsey, in fact, was to be a member of the GOP-appointed MeltzerCommission before his commitments to Bush stole him away. Today, Lindseysays he agrees with much of the commission's recommendations, but deniesthat they amount to a fundamental change at the IMF. Republican demandsfor reform, he says, have already resulted in many useful reforms at thefund, such as a promise from IMF leaders to no longer extend short-termloans for 10 or 20 years.C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics inWashington, says he doubts that Lindsey or any other IMF hard-liner in theBush camp would ever follow through on the Meltzer recommendations, advicethat would cripple the IMF. "No one would risk being blamed" forthe next crisis, he said. Might this antipathy for bailouts make Bush slowto respond to the next crisis? "We won't know till thathappens," Bergsten said.-John MaggsLabor PolicyThough the sharp differences between Gore and Bush over labor policy havereceived scant attention during the campaign, whoever prevails in the racefor the White House will have a large impact on the government's role inthe workplace.The next President's appointees to key federal agencies will makefar-reaching decisions on contentious issues that range from unionorganizing to regulations dealing with injuries on the job.Take the National Labor Relations Board, a powerful agency rarely in thespotlight. Labor activists and business lobbyists are quick to emphasizethe NLRB's importance and point out that the new President will nominatethree of its five members, as well as its general counsel. Among otherduties, those appointees will judge allegations of unfair labor practicesand determine whether campaigns by unions to organize workers aresuccessful.The two political parties are deeply divided over how to run the NLRB.Several key congressional Republicans recently called it troubling thatthe agency has been overturning precedents in labor-management disputes inorder to favor workers. Democrats countered that the NLRB needs moreenforcement authority to prevent employers from retaliating againstworkers who try to form unions.Efforts by the next President to impose sweeping changes to labor lawsprobably wouldn't succeed if his party doesn't control both chambers ofCongress. But the next President could well issue executive orders thatwould accomplish big changes.For example, near the end of his term, President Bush issued an orderrequiring government contractors with a unionized work force to informemployees of their right to reclaim the part of their dues that unions useto advance political causes. But shortly after Bill Clinton becamePresident, 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 largenumber of workers actually requested such a rebate, unions would losemillions of dollars for galvanizing the grass roots and increasing voterturnout.Meanwhile, the next President will also have considerable influence overthe Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.Business lobbyists often complain that OSHA's intrusiveness in theworkplace costs too much without providing a whole lot of benefits. Butunion representatives are just as adamant that OSHA must be even morevigilant and aggressive in protecting workers from hazards on thejob.Management and unions have been waging a ferocious lobbying battle overergonomics rules proposed by OSHA to compensate employees who sufferrepetitive-motion injuries. Even if Clinton issues the rules in hisAdministration's final days, Bush could rescind them. That would surelywin points with the small-business lobby, which has argued that the rulesare too vague and costly.Another hot-button issue that will turn on the election results involvesthe Family and Medical Leave Act, which Clinton signed in 1993 after Bushhad vetoed it the year before. Should Gore prevail in November, Democratswill push for an expansion of the law, which currently guaranteesemployees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies or for thebirth or adoption of a child. Bush probably would be unsympathetic to theproposal, which the business lobby contends would be far tooexpensive.-Kirk VictorMedicareNo matter who is President, and no matter which party controls the Houseand Senate, Washington's elected officials will almost certainly attemptto change Medicare next year-if nothing else, to make prescription drugsmore affordable for the elderly.That doesn't mean, however, that Democrats and Republicans will be able tofind a compromise to satisfy the political craving for a bill. Indeed, theMedicare proposals from Bush and Gore are so fundamentally different thatany end product will probably bear the stamp of whoever wins thepresidency."It's hard to find a middle ground," said Marilyn Moon, a seniorfellow at the Urban Institute and a Medicare trustee. "Ideologically,both sides feel strongly about whether the private sector should be reliedupon."Added Robert Moffit, director of domestic policy studies at theconservative Heritage Foundation: "It takes my breath away whenpeople say the Gore plan and the Bush plan are similar. The fact of thematter is that they are not.... It's the real difference between Venus andMars. If you go with Bush, you're going to one planet, and if you go withGore, you're going to be on another planet. The question is whether youcan take two different planets and make them one. You really can't. A lotof people for emotional reasons would say, `Let's come together.' But thefundamental differences are so profound that they'reirreconcilable."The difference is in the design and delivery of the drug benefit. Gorewants to retain the entitlement nature of Medicare, whereas Bush wants topromote competition from private plans.Bush suggests spending $48 billion over four years to help states assistlow-income seniors purchase prescription drugs while he and Congress workon a broad Medicare reform bill. Ultimately, Bush wants to give Medicarerecipients the option of using private health plans, some of which wouldinclude a prescription drug benefit. Seniors with incomes below 135percent of the federal poverty level would pay nothing for a prescriptiondrug benefit premium. Seniors with incomes up to 175 percent of povertywould get more-limited assistance, and all other seniors would get helpwith 25 percent of the cost.Gore's approach offers the greater level of security historically found inDemocratic-backed entitlement programs. He would create a prescriptiondrug benefit for all seniors that would eventually cover half the cost ofmedicines. Elderly people with annual incomes below 135 percent of thepoverty level would pay no premiums or co-payments.The final shape of any Medicare reform plan would also be influenced bywhich party controls the House and Senate. The President, though,"really does set the agenda," said John Rother, the director oflegislation for AARP, the largest seniors advocacy group. "As much asCongress doesn't like to admit it, the President is forcing Congress toreact to his agenda." And there's little room for compromise when itcomes to Medicare reform and prescription drugs.-Marilyn WerberSerafiniAbortionFor adversaries in the abortion wars, this presidential election is awinner-take-all contest.Bush and Gore have talked little about abortion, yet the issue dividesthem more sharply than virtually any other. Bush is a staunch abortionopponent who as Texas governor has championed restrictions on abortion andfamily planning, and he wants to amend the Constitution to ban mostabortions. Gore, by contrast, strongly backs abortion rights and has vowedto keep the procedure legal.The policy stakes are unusually high, given that the next President couldappoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices and scores of federaljudges, and will have the power to issue numerous abortion-relatedexecutive orders and to sign or veto any abortion-related legislation thatCongress sends his way."The future of a woman's right to reproductive choice is at stake inthis election," declared Kate Michelman, president of the NationalAbortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "We could lose ourfreedom to choose in one day on Election Day."Carol Tobias, director of the National Right to Life Committee's politicalaction committee, described the race in equally dramatic terms. Askedwhether the Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalizedabortion 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 hisSupreme Court nominees, he has stated that Roe vs. Wade "oversteppedthe constitutional bounds." And he has pointed to conservativesAntonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his model Justices. Gore has madethe opposite promise: that a Supreme Court appointee in his Administrationwould support abortion rights.However, despite the alarm bells sounded by activists, some expertsbelieve that Bush is unlikely to win the two-vote swing necessary for theSupreme Court to completely overturn Roe, especially because a closelydivided Senate could well reject any nominees it considers tooconservative.The next President will still have considerable influence on abortionpolicy on the Supreme Court and elsewhere. He will wield tremendousjudicial appointment power in the states, where about 8 percent of lowerfederal court judgeships stand vacant, noted Planned Parenthood PresidentGloria Feldt. Not to mention the power of the pen. President Clinton hasrepeatedly vetoed anti-abortion bills passed by the Republican-controlledCongress, including a ban on the procedure known as partial-birthabortion.Clinton also issued a long list of executive orders immediately on takingoffice that reversed abortion restrictions imposed by Presidents Bush andReagan. These included the so-called Mexico City Policy that bannedfederally funded overseas family-planning groups from providingabortion-related services, even with their own money. Gore wouldperpetuate Clinton's many abortion-related executive orders, whereas Bushwould reverse them.Worried abortion-rights advocates have thrown themselves into thepolitical fray more vigorously than in any previous presidential election.In its 84-year history, Planned Parenthood has not involved itself inpresidential politics, Feldt said. Yet this year, the organization plansto spend as much as $6 million on ads that contrast the two candidates'positions.NARAL also ventured into new territory this time, breaking itslong-standing policy of remaining neutral in presidential primaries. AfterDemocratic presidential hopeful Bill Bradley questioned Gore'sabortion-rights commitment, NARAL took the unprecedented step of endorsingGore before Super Tuesday."We really couldn't allow our issue to be squandered negatively, andto be used to divide rather than unite," Michelman said. In additionto the ad campaign, NARAL plans to spend $5 million on direct votercontact to influence the presidential and congressional elections.Abortion opponents are also going all out. The National Right to LifeCommittee "will do everything we can to get the pro-life vote out forGovernor 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 abortionpolicy.-Eliza Newlin CarneyMissile DefenseBoth Bush and Gore support a national missile defense system to protectthe United States from an accidental or limited attack of nuclear-tippedintercontinental ballistic missiles. But the two men are heading in suchdifferent directions that American foreign policy could be profoundlyaffected for years to come, depending on who wins the presidency inNovember.The Clinton Administration has endorsed missile defense only reluctantlyafter years of pressure from congressional Republicans. Administrationofficials, even after the President signed a law making it official U.S.policy to deploy a missile defense system as soon as technologicallyfeasible, insisted that the ultimate decision will depend on numerousother factors, including the system's affordability, the threat from"rogue states," and the impact of missile defense on armscontrol agreements with Russia and relations with other countries.These factors would give a President Gore many outs for not building amissile defense system, or the opportunity to trade it away to achieve agrand bargain with Russia to cut nuclear arms even further. Remember thatGore was one of the few U.S. Senators in the 1980s to master the arcanaand theory of arms control. He knows it and believes in it.After Clinton this summer deferred a decision on missile defense to thenext President, Gore's caution was evident. "The President was rightto delay the deployment decision," Gore said, "because we needmore time for additional testing of our national missile defense system,to ensure that these technologies actually work together properly, todetermine more clearly the costs of the system, and to conduct updatedtalks with other countries."The problem for a President Gore would be that it will soon be impossibleto be "a little bit pregnant" on national missile defense. IfGore genuinely believes in missile defense, he'll have to give the greenlight early in his presidency if the introductory, $30 billion system isto be up and running by 2007 to meet the projected threats from NorthKorea, Iran, and Iraq.Bush, by contrast, has been unabashed in his support. Even though Clintonhas had no success in getting the Russians to accept missile defense, Bushhas said, "If elected President, my job would be to convince theRussians and other countries why employing a missile defense system is theright step to take." Bush has threatened to abandon the ABM Treaty ifthe Russians don't agree. Furthermore, Bush wants a far more ambitiousmissile defense system than the land-based system of 100 interceptors inthe 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 expensiveproposal than the Clinton plan. Most experts believe that such a systemwould necessarily have to involve Navy ships and possibly space-basedinterceptors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, anindependent think tank in Washington, has estimated the cost of such asystem at between $100 billion and $120 billion. That approaches the costof the most expensive government science project in history-the Apollomoon shots at $125 billion in today's dollars.Bush could proceed unilaterally-if he had the votes in Congress-but such acourse entails risks. An expanded missile defense would take additionalyears of research and development, during which time the Russians andChinese could either counter the technologies or simply build moremissiles to overwhelm the defense. An expansive system could also threatenother priorities, such as a tax cut and the reform of SocialSecurity.-James KitfieldGay RightsOn gay-rights issues, Bush and Gore have track records that suggest theywould govern very differently in the White House. As Vice President, Gorehas endorsed the Clinton Administration's numerous gay-rights initiatives,including a 1998 executive order that bars discrimination against gays andlesbians in the federal work force. Bush, on the other hand, never imposeda similar edict in Texas.Gore has also promised to continue the Administration policy of appointinggays to executive and judicial branch posts. From 1993-2000, PresidentClinton named more than 150 openly gay and lesbian people to topgovernment jobs. Bush has stated that he would not exclude gays fromgovernment posts if they supported his agenda.During the primaries, Gore said he would try to eliminate thecontroversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in themilitary. He favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly; at onepoint during the campaign, he promised to appoint to the Joint Chiefs ofStaff 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 wouldhave to approve any change in policy.Gore also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a long-stalledmeasure that would bar companies in the private sector from discriminatingagainst gays and lesbians. The legislation is unlikely to pass until theDemocrats regain control of Congress. Bush opposes thelegislation.Neither Gore nor Bush supports the right of gays to marry. But the VicePresident has pledged to back efforts to extend married couples' economic,health, and other legal benefits to domestic partners. Most benefitsplans, however, are regulated at the state level. As governor, Bush hasemphasized "traditional values." He has taken no position on thepartners issue.Bush firmly opposes gay adoption. Gore has said adoption decisions shouldbe made on a case-by-case basis without regard to a parent's sexualorientation. The states decide adoption policy.Gay rights increasingly have become a legal issue, and both Gore and Bushcould have a major impact on the composition of the Supreme Court, whichis narrowly divided on gay-rights issues. Bush appointees would quitelikely have a more conservative judicial philosophy, especially ongay-rights issues, than would Gore appointees. Over the next decade, theCourt could revisit a decision that upheld state anti-sodomy laws, and itcould also determine the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children. Inthe next several years, the Court could also decide whether federal hatecrime statutes unconstitutionally intrude into local matters.-MeganLisagor and Shawn ZellerAffirmative ActionThe next President will have the opportunity to make his mark onaffirmative action through executive orders, as well as through judicialand administrative appointments.Gore is a staunch defender of President Clinton's "mend it, not endit" affirmative action policy. Bush, on the other hand, says heopposes quotas and racial preferences in favor of programs such as theTexas 10 percent plan, which automatically admits high school graduatesfrom the top 10 percent of their class to any state college or university.He has not, however, been especially outspoken about his home state'sapproach 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 theDepartment of Justice, the Office for Civil Rights at the EducationDepartment, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at theLabor Department, as well as the U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, will greatly influence how the federal government regulatesaffirmative action.President Clinton has named to these posts members of the civil rightscommunity who strongly favor affirmative action. He has also usedexecutive orders to protect affirmative action. When the Supreme Courthanded down its Adarand decision in 1995, which weakened affirmativeaction by stating that racial preferences in contracting areconstitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further acompelling governmental interest, Clinton ordered a broad review andrestructuring 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 ofClinton's. Bush, by contrast, could greatly alter federal enforcement ofaffirmative action by placing anti-preference administrators in majorcivil rights posts. They would be more likely to address complaints ofdiscrimination against white men, and to regulate against preferences ofany 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 andminorities," says Roger Clegg, vice president and general counsel forthe Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank based inWashington. "But what would be different is that companies are notgoing to be pressured to discriminate in favor of certaingroups."Odds are that whomever is elected President will nominate at least oneSupreme Court Justice. For now, the Court is closely balanced onaffirmative action. Depending on which seats are vacated, a Bush or Gorepresidency could tip the Court balance in favor of affirmative action orexpand the majority against it.The next President will also have the opportunity to fill hundreds ofvacancies in the federal district courts and the courts of appeals-scenesof the most intense legal battles over affirmative action. PresidentsReagan and Bush, by and large, appointed conservative judges who wereopposed to affirmative action. The impact of those appointments is stillfelt today, made evident by the growing number of federal court decisionsstriking down affirmative action.Clinton's appointments have eroded the conservative majority in the lowercourts. If Gore is elected, his appointments could result in a liberalmajority, which would provide a possible safeguard for affirmative action.George W. Bush's appointments, on the other hand, could further cement theanti-preference sentiment in the judiciary.-Megan TwoheyHere are 10 issues where the impact of the new President may be relativelysmall.EducationAlthough education is a top concern of voters, and both Bush and Gore havebeen spending a lot of time campaigning in schools, neither candidatewould probably have a big impact as President on the direction ofeducation reform. That's not to say that Bush and Gore wouldn't push foreducation reforms-both would. But both parties in Congress will also wantto have a say on education policy, and that suggests that whatever getsdone will end up being close to the political center."Education isn't at stake," said an upbeat Amy Wilkins, a policyanalyst at the Education Trust, an advocacy group for poor children."Education is going to be there in Congress no matter who getselected [President]."Both candidates are already eyeing the middle ground. Although theydisagree on the specifics, both Bush and Gore have focused their educationplans on one result: closing the achievement gap between wealthy anddisadvantaged kids.Gore has even begun to acknowledge the similarities between his approachand Bush's. Both campaigns have focused on ways to try to "improveour schools all across the country," Gore said at an Ohio middleschool in September. "Both Governor Bush and I agreed that thepolicies and the decision-making should stay at the local level, and bothof us believe that there should be accountability-new accountability-toencourage better performance."To be sure, there are differences. Gore wants to spend twice as much asBush, reduce class sizes, and build more schools; Bush wants to offervouchers 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 Congresswhose partisanship this year blocked the reauthorization of the bill thatgoverns the main federal investment in elementary and secondary education.Some Hill staffers predict that next year's education debate will be lesspartisan because it's not an election year, and a divided Congress willmean that lawmakers who feel pressure to show progress on the educationfront will need to compromise. "At the end of the day, you alwaysmove to the middle," said a Senate Republican aide.Many of the plans Gore and Bush have put on the table are not new toCongress. Gore's proposals for class size and school construction are areincarnation of what President Clinton and congressional Democrats havebeen 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 proposalsponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. Theirplan consolidates 50-plus federal education programs into five categories,requires states to show measurable results, and gives the states $35billion above current spending over five years to do it. "If anythingis going to get passed, regardless of who the next President is, it willneed to be along the lines of what we have proposed," said Bayh."If one side or the other just insists on having their way, thennothing will get done."And given that the federal government contributes all of 7 percent of themoney spent on education in this country, Wilkins said she's moreconcerned about the outcomes of state and local elections. "What's atstake in this election is whether or not candidates at every level, afterthe election, will be willing to invest in these good times," shesaid. "They can afford to do the stuff. Are they going to take thisopportunity to do those things that small budgets didn't allow them todo?"-Siobhan GormanCampaign Finance ReformPresidential hopefuls have talked a lot about campaign finance reform thisyear, but don't expect much action following Inauguration Day.To be sure, both major-party candidates are serving up plenty ofpro-reform rhetoric. Bush, who at one point dubbed himself "AReformer With Results," consistently attacks Gore as a campaign moneyscofflaw. For his part, Gore rails heartily against "specialinterests" and has pledged to make a "soft-money" ban thevery first bill he sends to Congress.On paper, the two candidates differ markedly in their approach torewriting the election laws. Bush fundamentally toes the conservative linethat deregulation and disclosure is the answer. He would raise campaigncontribution limits on the grounds that "political donors should befree to give more money," according to The Dallas Morning News. Hewould also bar labor unions and corporations from donating soft money, butwould not extend that ban to individuals or state parties.By contrast, Gore has embraced a sweeping regulatory scheme built onpublic financing for House and Senate candidates who agree to take noprivate money. He opposes higher contribution limits, endorses anacross-the-board ban on soft money, and wants better disclosure frompolitically 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 regardlessof which party is in control, such a ban faces an all-but-inevitablefilibuster in the Senate.Even in the unlikely event that Democrats take over both chambers ofCongress, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, their enthusiasmfor reform can be expected to fade once a politically appealing soft-moneyban threatens to become a reality. That's particularly true now thatDemocrats are for the first time raising almost as much soft money astheir 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 theissue once elected, and to become embroiled in one of the worst politicalmoney scandals since Watergate. Gore's own involvement in theforeign-money imbroglio has made it difficult for him to take the highroad."I remain skeptical," said Common Cause President ScottHarshbarger. "The words are right. The proposals are right. Thequestion 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, andthen you have the reality. And the reality is that neither of them hasmade campaign finance reform a priority," said Stephen R. Weissman,legislative representative for Public Citizen. "And both of them havebeen involved in raising soft money and bundlingcontributions."Not that some campaign finance reforms-particularly if limited to a ban onsoft money-are out of the question. The candidates' willingness to talkabout the issue suggests that it has begun to resonate with voters. Gorewould most certainly sign a soft-money ban approved by Congress, and Bushwould quite likely feel political pressure to do the same."I think Bush would be hard-pressed, if a moderate bill werepresented to him, to veto it," noted Robert A. Levy, a senior fellowin constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, which favorsderegulation. In the meantime, however, both candidates are more inclinedto use the campaign reform issue as a political weapon than as an actualvehicle for change.-Eliza Newlin CarneyChinaPresidential candidates talk a lot about changing U.S.-China policy, butonce they step on the Oval Office carpet, they seem to get coldfeet.In 1980, Ronald Reagan talked about establishing relations with Taiwan butbacked off after taking office, when his advisers told him this couldstart a war with China. Bill Clinton in 1992 attacked President Bush for"coddling dictators" and promised to link U.S.-China trade withChina's progress on human rights. Less than a year later, Clintonrepudiated that linkage and ushered in an era of close cooperation andchampagne toasts. George W. Bush similarly has tried to look tough onChina, labeling it a "strategic competitor"-a deliberatecontrast to Clinton's "strategic partner." But that may not lasteither.Only a year ago, it seemed as if China might be a big issue in thepresidential campaign. Relations between the two governments were at a lowpoint after the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade;there were shocking (and apparently exaggerated) allegations of Chinesenuclear espionage; and Taiwan suddenly seemed on the verge of declaringindependence. Republicans fulminated about Clinton's alleged mishandlingof China and looked forward to reminding voters about Gore's fund raisingamong ethnic Chinese.Most of these issues have quieted down, and the Senate, in itsoverwhelming Sept. 19 vote in favor of permanent normal trade relationswith China, buried the biggest bone of contention between Beijing andWashington. But that doesn't completely explain why China has disappearedfrom the campaign.As Nicholas Lardy sees it, the challenges of dealing with China are solarge, and the path America wants China to follow is so clear, that theseissues dwarf any differences that Gore and Bush have about the People'sRepublic. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says thatthese larger goals-integrating China into the world economy, promoting itsstability, and avoiding conflict with Taiwan-will lead the next Presidenttoward a policy very similar to the one that has been followed for thepast 12 years."I don't expect much difference" from whomever wins theelection, Lardy said. "I don't think there is any real alternative toengaging the Chinese, as we have done, to bring them into theinternational system." Both Bush and Gore support the central tenetsof U.S. policy: bringing China more fully into the world economy, and the"one-China" formulation, whereby all sides agree to pretend thatTaiwan is not independent and that reunification must be peaceful.Gore has given every indication he will continue this approach. When somequestioned whether the Vice President was avoiding the recent debate onnormalized trade with China to please his union supporters who haveconcerns about Chinese labor practices, Gore told a union convention thathe would fight for the bill.The only potential for a big shift in U.S.-China relations lies in a Bushpresidency, and the possibility of a Reaganesque revival, according toLardy. Bush has a number of foreign policy advisers who served in hisfather's Administration-among them are retired Gen. Colin Powell,Condoleezza Rice, and Robert Zoellick-and they all share the elder Bush'scommitment to cooperation with China. But the other wing of the foreignpolicy team includes several advisers from the Reagan years who take amore hawkish view-among them are George Schultz, Paul Wolfowitz, andRichard Burt. Reagan didn't recognize Taiwan's independence, but he didsupport the Taiwan Relations Act, which established the principle that theUnited States would defend the island from Chinese attack. "I thinkit is really hard to say which view is more likely to be the dominantone" in a new Bush Administration, Lardy said.Mixed messages about China would be nothing new. Lardy said Clinton oftenconfounded the Chinese leadership by pushing a hard line on human rights,then backing off; pushing for a trade deal, then stunning the Chinese bybacking away under pressure from textile makers. The cross currents ofpressure from business, labor, and other interests on China will test theconsistency of any President, he said.-John MaggsDefense Spending, ReformIf Cuba Gooding Jr. of Jerry Maguire was working in the Pentagon, he'd bepretty happy regardless of who wins this November. Under his bottom-linecriterion of "show me the money," Bush and Gore both come outpretty even, and congressional support for more defense spending remainsstrong. Although calls by some hawks for massive increases of more than$50 billion every year will hardly be heeded, no conceivable electionoutcome could derail the steady, if slow, annual increases in defensebudgets that began in 1998.But the bottom line isn't actually the bottom line: How much you spend isless important than what you spend it on. And here is one of the unnoticedironies of the 2000 campaign. On the question of total spending, bothcandidates represent the status quo of gradual increases. Yet on thefundamental issue of reorganizing the military for 21st-century war, thereis no status quo candidate: Both Bush and Gore have embraced the idea ofreform-and in office, either man could have a real chance to deliversubstantial change."There is a surprising consensus among defense intellectuals andmilitary leaders about the outlines of this nascent militarytransformation," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with thedefense-industry-supported Lexington Institute. The"transformation" in question is from the Industrial Age to theInformation Age; from reliance on heavy metal-massive barrages, thickarmor, and bureaucratic chains of command-to microchips-smart weapons,stealth, and computer networks. The reform enthusiasts argue that theresult will be a force that is deadlier, more agile, and far easier todeploy to distant battlefields. And after years of laboring in thewilderness of academia or the bowels of the Pentagon bureaucracy, thoseenthusiasts, 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 politicsin the Capitol, and military conservatism in the Pentagon, have slowedreform for years, and there is no political percentage in taking onentrenched interests over such an arcane, complex issue. But a group ofdefense intellectuals has coalesced around a receptive George W. Bush. Soinstead of preaching safely to the strong-defense choir, Bush, while atThe Citadel military college in Septenber 1999 to deliver his first majorpolicy address, took time to lament: "Our military is still organized... for Industrial Age operations, rather than for Information Agebattles."Since then, Bush has shifted his rhetoric to the traditional Republicanmantra that Clinton has weakened the military, and Bush has tapped as hisrunning mate Dick Cheney, a former Defense Secretary considered to beskeptical of the "transformation" arguments: "He's muchmore a status quo kind of guy," said Tom Donnelly of the Project fora New American Century. Nevertheless, the radicals and their ideasremain.The Gore camp, meanwhile, played defense on defense, echoing some ofBush's reform ideas while calling others too radical. But then cameLieberman. For quite unrelated reasons, Gore happened to choose as hisrunning mate the Senate's strongest advocate of militarytransformation."I don't think he changes the campaign, because then you would haveto be critical of the Clinton Administration [for its slow progress], butI do think he does change it substantially after the election," saidformer Pentagon official Lawrence J. Korb. As a leading member of theSenate Armed Services Committee, Lieberman has pushed the Pentagon toexperiment more boldly, and he demonstrates a real grasp of and passionfor the details of military reform. In contrast to the well-staffed cadreof defense intellectuals around Bush, Lieberman is a cadre of one-but hewould be at the heart of the Administration. So while real defense reformwill always be an uphill battle, both Gore and Bush would give it afighting chance.-Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.High TechBush and Gore's platforms on Internet-related high-technology issues aresimilar enough to mute industry worries over the election.Both candidates celebrate the Internet economy and its entrepreneurs. Infront of high-tech audiences, Bush emphasizes the free market, tax cuts,and reforms in education and tort law, while Gore touts a mix of federalspending on technology, a focus on the "digital divide," andminimal federal regulation. Both candidates have downplayed politicalconflicts over Internet pornography, privacy, and "open access"to Internet content. Both have called for tougher privacy rules fortraditional medical and financial information, but seem willing to allowlooser rules and industry self-regulation in the online sector.Although the candidates' more partisan allies are eager to emphasize theirdifferences on Internet policy, those differences would likely be dulledin the legislative arena. For example, one industry official noted thatGore's close ties to trial lawyers will make it more difficult for thehigh-tech industry to escape expensive lawsuits. As the Internet economygrows, he said, lawyers will push for rules easing the way for lawsuitsover privacy, deals gone sour, and hacker attacks. But Wade Randlett, anInternet executive and a Gore fund-raiser, pooh-poohs this concern, sayingthat "all the [tort reform] issues we have worked on, we havewon."On some of the most contentious issues, both candidates have avoidedtaking strong positions, and that reluctance makes it unlikely that eitherone would take the Internet economy in a different direction.For example, says Jeff Chester, the executive director at the Center forMedia Education, both candidates have remained silent on the fundamentalissue of Internet "open access" rules. Under rules inheritedfrom the era of telephone regulation, Internet service providers such asAT&T cannot prevent their customers from accessing other companies'Internet data, entertainment, and services using telephone links. But asmore Internet services are delivered through cable TV links,profit-seeking cable companies may try to fence off portions of theInternet, Chester said. However, government agencies now under Gore'sinfluence are prodding large cable companies to open up theirnetworks.At Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology, Director Jamie Love saysthe candidates are very similar. "They suck up to people with bigbucks in e-commerce," he said. But he also points out that Bush'selection would stir Democrats to oppose wiretap and privacy policies theynow support meekly because they are pushed by Clinton's White House.Chester echoed that prediction: "It appears that traditionalpublic-interest liberal issues appear to develop a larger constituency andmore funding when the Republicans are in power."-Neil MunroGun ControlBush and Gore have devoted plenty of time on the stump and lots of spaceon their Web sites to their visions for gun control. But the winner'sagenda may not have much real impact after Election Day.Daniel D. Polsby, a George Mason University law professor and the authorof "The False Promise of Gun Control," says that althoughPresident Clinton shaped gun control during his watch, its "politicalutility may have been expended." The reality is that forcesindependent of the White House could change the gun control landscape,namely litigation in the lower courts. The states and cities that havesued gun manufacturers want to hold them liable under public nuisance anddeceptive business practice laws and to collect damages for the costs ofgun violence.Kristen Rand, a lawyer for the Violence Policy Center, which advocatesholding firearms to the health and safety standards of other consumerproducts, has studied the pending gun lawsuits. She says that until thereis a federal agency with health and safety authority over guns, litigationwill have the greatest impact because it exposes the industry's"questionable practices."State-level action will quite likely outpace federal movements toward guncontrol. The states are moving to establish handgun licensing andregistration and to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons, accordingto Mark Pertschuk, legislative director for the Coalition to Stop GunViolence.Others predict that Congress, not the White House, will lead on guncontrol. Jim Kessler, policy director for Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.,points to an interesting trend: "Over the last few cycles, newmembers [of Congress] have been more inclined to support gun control thanthe members that they are replacing." He believes that, regardless ofthe electoral outcome, there will be a "tide of pro-gun-control inCongress."David Kopel, associate policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,says that if there is either a Republican President or Congress, then thetop priority will be to remove the ability of states and cities to sue thegun manufacturers. If there is a Democrat in the White House, he expectsthe push for gun control legislation would be moderate, "because theWhite 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 enoughgun restrictions to vigorously prosecute criminals, and he wants toprotect "law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights" to keepand 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 numbersof new gun owners, she says, means that over time-stretching beyond thenext President's term-there won't be as much opposition to gun regulation."We're willing to wait them out to get more meaningful guncontrol," she said.-Elisabeth FraterSocial SecurityThere is only one reliable scenario under which the next White Houseoccupant would have a significant influence over the Social Securitysystem-sand that's if Bush is victorious on Nov. 7 and can join forceswith Republican majorities in the House and Senate. And even under thatscenario, there would be numerous caveats about Bush's electoral mandate,the power of minority Democrats to block elements of his private-accountsproposal, the health of the economy and financial markets, voter supportfor 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 samecongressional committees as would Social Security legislation).In other words, much could be at stake for Social Security depending onwho is President, but primarily if it is a Bush reform plan that meetswilling lawmakers. If Bush has to work with a divided Congress, orDemocratic majorities, his plan to allow younger workers to invest some oftheir Social Security taxes in market accounts they control themselveswould face slim chances. Gore's ideas for Social Security-to creditinterest savings on the debt to the system and to add agovernment-matched, tax-free 401(k)-style investment option-are consideredless controversial but would probably need Democratic majorities to becomelaw. Faced with a Republican-led Congress, Gore would veto the GOP'sprivate-investment legislation, and his veto would probably stand unlessenough Democrats joined forces with Republicans.Because Bush and Gore have dramatically differing ideas about the futureof Social Security, including how to craft new investment opportunitiesfor workers, it is tempting to believe that White House leadership, come2001, will make a significant impact on the outcome of the debate.Tempting, but speculative, for two simple reasons: First, in the 65 yearssince the Social Security system was created as an anti-poverty programfor the elderly during the Great Depression, Washington has never madesignificant alterations to the system in the absence of imminentinsolvency. Thanks to black ink in the federal budget, Social Securityinsolvency is at least several decades away. And second, a legislativeconsensus will be tough to muster without a significant majority in bothhouses of Congress that is working supportively with the President of thatparty on reform ideas backed firmly by voters.In terms of launching an offensive for change, the President "makes ahuge amount of difference, if you assume that Bush captures the WhiteHouse and the Republicans retain control of Congress, even narrowly,"Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer said, "because I thinkthis will mean the President will have to submit a plan to Congress thatinvolves individual accounts.... But do I think that something will gothrough? 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 thePresident will have to deliver on. But then you get into all sorts of verydifferent predictions about the future."One of the complicating factors for Bush would be if he opted to try topush both a major tax cut and Social Security reform through Congress atthe same time as part of his honeymoon agenda. It would be a huge load fora new Congress, even a friendly one. There are certainly Democraticenthusiasts in Congress for private accounts who would help Bush, but theydon't support Bush's expensive giveback plan on taxes, which locks upfuture budget surpluses that may never materialize. At least oneDemocratic economic analyst speculated that the defeat of Bush's tax plan,or a dramatic downsizing of it, could improve chances for Social Securityprivate accounts. "They might almost hope the tax cut fails,"the analyst said of Bush's team, noting that Bush could turn around andblame the Democrats, then convince U.S. workers that his private-accountsplan is almost as good as a tax benefit if they were permitted to earnricher market returns on their Social Security contributions over alifetime.For Social Security reform, there are a lot of "ifs."-AlexisSimendingerThe UninsuredBoth Bush and Gore have proposed plans to shrink the growing ranks of theuninsured-now at 44 million Americans and counting. But their differingapproaches could matter less than the emerging congressional consensus onthe issue.Gore has focused on expanding government programs, such as Medicaid andthe states' Children's Health Insurance Program, while Bush has emphasizedthe use of federal tax credits to encourage the purchase of privateinsurance.Members of Congress explored these two approaches earlier this year, andthere were signs that doing some of each may be politically feasible."We already have bipartisan agreement, and that's on the use of taxcredits to expand health insurance," said Robert Moffit, director ofdomestic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.Indeed, some of the most liberal Democrats and some of the mostconservative Republicans worked on the tax credit concept this year. Rep.Fortney H. "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., and House Majority LeaderDick Armey, R-Texas, tried their hands at fashioning a bipartisan taxcredit proposal. They abandoned the mission when they couldn't agree onall of the details, but they ended up writing a joint editorial in TheWashington Post promoting the concept as a potential cure for the growingproblem of the uninsured.Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer advocacygroup, cautioned, however, that concern from employers, insurers, andorganized labor would keep any final tax credit bill from making toodrastic a change. Pollack said he's particularly concerned about planslike Bush's, which he says would move insurance away from anemployer-based system. "Many employers feel they've made largecontributions in insurance ... and labor unions feel they've made theirbiggest advances in health benefits. It's the cornerstone of manycollective bargaining units."Gore has proposed reducing the number of uninsured Americans in incrementsby first expanding coverage through existing government programs. At thecenterpiece of his blueprint is a proposal to enroll more children, andsome parents, in the state Children's Health Insurance Program and inMedicaid. He would expand state CHIP eligibility to include childrenliving at up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level and make statesresponsible for enrolling more eligible children.Gore also wants to offer a tax credit equivalent to 25 percent of aperson's health insurance costs to help spur the purchase of privateinsurance.With Bush, the emphasis is reversed. The focal point of his plan is thetax credit. He would give people without employer-sponsored healthinsurance an annual tax credit of up to $1,000 per individual and $2,000per family to cover up to 90 percent of the cost of health insurance. Thesubsidy would vary depending upon income.Bush places less emphasis on CHIP; he wants to give states moreflexibility in administering the program and allow states to expand CHIPto other eligible people, including some parents. Bush would offer no newmoney for expanded CHIP coverage.Moffit, for one, predicts the issue of the uninsured will return nextyear, even though it's received relatively little attention on thecampaign trail. "Many of the problems are getting worse," hesaid.-Marilyn Werber SerafiniTRADEPresident Bush would beat the drums for trade. President Gore, taking hismarching orders from organized labor, would slow the pace of internationalcommerce.A no-brainer, right? Wrong. In fact, trade isn't likely to be a priorityfor the next occupant of the Oval Office. And though Bush would probablyput more effort into a trade agenda than Gore, there is no reason tobelieve that either one could produce major breakthroughs in America'strading relations with other countries. That's because neither Gore norBush will enter the White House with a mandate to make major changes inexisting trade policy. Neither has made trade a campaign issue, and publicopinion polls show that trade is an irrelevant, single-digit voterconcern.Now that China is on its way to becoming a member of the World TradeOrganization, trade is not high on the business community's agenda,either. The business community has its hands full simply supplying thebooming U.S. domestic economy. And the United States, Japan, Europe, andthe developing world aren't close to resolving their conflicting goals forthe future of the global trading system.In any event, a presumably divided Congress would be a considerableobstacle to any trade initiatives. The party that controls the House islikely to do so by a razor-thin margin. Given internal party divisions ontrade, it is unlikely that a majority could be mustered for fast-tracktrade negotiating authority or for any other major trade proposals.Consideration of such legislation may have to await the results of the2002 congressional elections, assuming those produce definitive majoritiesin either chamber.Consequently, the next Administration's trade agenda should largely beconfined to issues that do not require Capitol Hill's OK and shoulddepend, even more than usual, on the skills of the next President's tradeczar. If the next U.S. Trade Representative or head of the NationalEconomic Council has a bit of vision and is blessed with astute politicalskills, and if the White House gives him or her room to maneuver, someprogress could be made in resolving or containing mushrooming tradedisputes with Europe, crafting a new framework for Washington's tradingrelationship with Japan, and fleshing out plans for free trade in theWestern Hemisphere.If the trade portfolio is handed out as a payoff for someone's help in thecampaign 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 StokesScienceAlthough some science advocates say that government funds for research,along with the freedom to experiment on stem cells extracted from humanembryos, are at stake in this election, it appears unlikely that the Nov.7 outcome will make a substantial difference to the overall progress ofscience in federal laboratories, universities, and corporate researchcenters.Both Bush and Gore are promising to double funding for the NationalInstitutes of Health and to up the budgets for other research. Bush favorsdefense research and promises an extra $20 billion, whereas Gore favorsenvironmental technology programs.The candidates' more controversial positions would probably lose much oftheir edge in the routine rough-and-tumble of Washington deal-making. Forexample, Gore has taken an aggressive stance during the campaign againstthe science-intensive pharmaceutical companies and has threatened theirprofits and research funds by urging deep cuts in drug prices. But"after Nov. 7, and after the dust has settled ... we can probablyreturn to a constructive dialogue," said a pharmaceutical industryofficial. One reason for such confidence, he said, is Gore's pastcooperation with the industry. Gore has helped to streamline the Food andDrug Administration and to boost federal funding for medicalresearch.Bush has promised more money for science, but his promises will bedifficult to fulfill, given his commitment to broad-based tax cuts, somescience advocates say. And although Gore has promised smaller tax cuts, heurges more spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other nonscientificprograms. Science advocates complain that Bush's tax cuts and Gore'sspending initiatives would have the same effect-both plans make it harderfor the government to appropriate funds for research in health care,space, physics, math, computer science, geology, the environment, and ahost of other areas.Gore supports funding federal research into stem cells taken from humanembryos, whereas Bush has promised to ban such funding. But stem-cellresearch is burgeoning primarily in the private sector, and there is noevidence that Bush would try to restrict it there. At most, Bush's lack ofsupport at the federal level could slow private investment in stem-cellresearch and increase the prospect that states would apply somerestrictions to commercial research. Bush's position could also increasethe courts' tolerance of such restrictions, but anti-abortion-rightsadvocates, such as Teresa Wagner, a policy analyst at the Family ResearchCouncil, are skeptical that Bush will try to reform the legalestablishment by appointing and backing judges sympathetic to theircause.Judges have recently struck down laws that place restrictions on research,and most experts presume they'll continue to do so. For example, anArizona law banning research that uses organs from aborted fetuses wasstruck down in September 1999, according to a Reagan-appointed judge,because of the vagueness of critical terms such as"experimentation" and "investigation." Two federalappeals courts and a federal district court have struck down comparablelaws in Illinois, Louisiana, and Utah. In early October, the Arizona casewill be appealed before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.If the appeals court rejects the district court's judgment, the plaintiffswill ask the appeals court to strike the law interfering with a woman'sreproductive choices, and with everyone's right to make health caredecisions, said Bebe Anderson, the lead plaintiffs attorney who works forthe 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 suchas cloning, and opponents of unrestricted research must be smart enough towrite restrictions in ways that don't collide with free speech orreproductive rights.-Neil MunroAlexis SimendingerNational Journal Need A Reprint Of This Article?National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 202-266-7230. 3 of 10 results Previous Story Next Story Back to Results List
lil dust family hatin instrumental
2ff7e9595c
Comments