With the presidential debates over and exactly two weeks to gountil Election Day, Tufts professors say that domestic issues willplay an important role in voters' decisions, despite a recentemphasis on foreign affairs and the Iraq war.
Polls show that the race is in a dead heat. The most recentCNN/USA/Gallup poll shows George Bush leading John Kerry at 49 to46 percent. The latest ABC/Post poll also puts Bush ahead with 48percent of the electorate and Kerry at 47 percent. The CBS/NYTimespoll shows the two candidates head to head at 47 percent.
With only 11 swing states remaining and such an evenly dividedelectorate, voters who are still on the fence may be askingthemselves what the differences between the candidates' domesticpolicy platforms really are.
One of the most important domestic issues of this election cycleis fiscal responsibility, particularly after Bush's controversialtax cuts.
Economics Professor Gilbert Metcalf says Bush's tax cuts willincrease the five-year cumulative deficit by approximately $2.6trillion, though this is offset by a surplus of about $1.6 trillionin the Social Security accounts.
But high deficits are uncharacteristic of the Republican Party,Department of Political Science Assistant Professor DeborahSchildkraut said. "One thing that's new in this election year isthat Democrats are usually characterized as the tax-and-spendparty, but Clinton presided on projected surplus," she said.
"Bush's policy has run on deficits and this has angered a lot ofthe Republican base. The seeming fiscal irresponsibility goesagainst conservative Republicans," Schildkraut said.
One dissenting party member is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). InJanuary, he told The New York Times that the GOP-led Congress wasspending money like "drunken sailors."
Indeed, the Bush tax cuts are so severe that they "will wipe outall the funds collected between 1983 and 2009 to help pay forSocial Security for baby boomers," Metcalf said.
During the third and final presidential debate, Kerry correctlyaccused Bush of having never vetoed a spending bill. Bush has notvetoed a single bill of any sort while in office.
When it comes to candidates' economic campaign promises, "if wefocus on which candidate's policy will leave the federal budget inbetter shape, then I'd have to choose Kerry," Metcalf said.
"But it must be pointed out that neither candidate's numbers addup - Bush's proposals will add over a trillion dollars to thenational debt over 10 years. Kerry's will add between $500 and $600billion," Metcalf said.
Voters should know the key difference in the plans - Bush hasfocused his tax cuts on the upper income brackets, while Kerrywould redirect tax cuts to the middle class and sponsor healthinsurance initiatives that, "if successful, will put more money inthe pockets of lower- and middle-income households," Metcalfsaid.
Professors agree that when it comes to health care, Kerry seemsto be a better choice for most American families.
"I'd say President Bush's grade on health care is about as goodas the grades he earned at Yale. In this grade-inflated world, that'gentleman's C' looks a lot more like an F in my eyes," Departmentof Political Science Assistant Professor Gary McKissick said.
Health insurance costs are rising steeply - there was a 64percent rise in health insurance costs in the United States between2000 and 2004, according to Department of Economics AssociateProfessor David Dapice - but there are still 45 million uninsuredAmerican citizens and residents, McKissick said.
Despite such a high number of uninsured people, spending onhealth care per capita in the United States is $4,887 while Sweden,Japan and Canada spend about half the amount and have higher lifeexpectancies, Dapice said.
McKissick said that in his opinion, Kerry's health care plan is"substantially better" than Bush's, but added that neithercandidate's plan is realistic.
"Kerry's reality problem is really more one of politicalfeasibility," he said. "Because he's proposing much more ambitiouschanges, he's bound to encounter much more political resistance tothem."
"Bush's plan is unrealistic in its assessment of the problems ofour health care system and its proposed remedies," McKissicksaid.
For the healthy insured, McKissick said Bush is a bettercandidate. But the under-insured, those insured through publicinsurance programs, and the uninsured, would benefit from a Kerrypresidency, he said.
McKissick said the "real wild card" in health care is theprescription drug benefits that are scheduled to start in 2006.
According to The Wall Street Journal, these benefits willgreatly increase costs to taxpayers, and The New York Times reportsthat new government estimates show that 3.8 million employers willreduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits once the coverage isoffered.
"The most likely outcome of this new benefit is that the bill tothe taxpayers is going to be substantially higher than advertised,and the benefit experienced by seniors substantially below whatthey are expecting," McKissick said. "Medicare politics is going tobe very volatile and potentially explosive in the next few years,no matter who wins the White House."
"Neither candidate's proposals come close to providing universalhealth insurance so regardless of who wins the election, the U.S.will retain its uniqueness as the only advanced industrializeddemocracy to have a big chunk of its population uninsured," hesaid.
But Kerry's plans would bring coverage to 27 million uninsuredAmericans while Bush's would move only two to three million towardshealth insurance, McKissick said.
Another domestic policy issue that may help ambivalent votersdecide is Bush's treatment of the environment, which Department ofPolitical Science Professor Kent Portney says has not been verygood.
"A lot of what he's doing is under the radar screen of mostpeople," said Portney, who specializes in environmentalpolitics.
Portney cited the White House's move to make it easier andcheaper for electric-generating facilities to emit more greenhousegases as a major example of the current administration'sfailures.
This policy has even created animosity in the diplomatic realm,since Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol has angered partnernations.
As for Kerry, Portney said his environmental platform "hasn'tbeen that specific" but said there is a clear difference betweenthe two candidates when it comes to energy independence or relianceon foreign oil.
"Bush says hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go; his view is weneed more sources of energy," Portney said. "Kerry's perspective isgeared towards more energy conservation; he's very much in favor ofmaking federal investments in those sources."
One new facet of this election's domestic wrangling is thequestion of gay marriage. The Bush administration brought the issueto a head recently by bringing before Congress a constitutionalamendment that would define marriage as between a man and awoman.
But Schildkraut said "this is not an issue upon which manyvoters will decide their vote."
Like candidates during the civil rights movement of the 1960sand 1970s, Schildkraut said today's candidates "want to swaymoderate white voters - they are not trying to get gay voters.There are a lot of moderate undecided voters who are very uneasyabout the topic of gay marriage."
No matter who wins on Nov. 2, the next president will faceobstacles in the road to achieving his campaign promises. Accordingto McKissick, "Who controls Congress, and by how much, willdetermine just how aggressive either Bush or Kerry can be inpushing their proposals."
