Democrat Nancy Pelosi has spelled out a detailed policy agenda that she will attempt to enact, if elected, in her first 100 hours as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. What will the Republicans attempt to do if they hold on to the House? Good luck finding out.

Resident Scholar Kevin A. Hassett

The conventional wisdom is that this election is a referendum on President George W. Bush and that his low popularity is driving the Democrats' momentum.

There is no question that the president's popularity is suffering at the polls. The latest Gallup Poll shows his average approval rating for the latest, and 23rd, quarter of his presidency at 39.1 percent. Going back to President Harry Truman, Bush's approval rating ranks fourth out of the six presidents who served at least that long.

Midterm elections are always partially about the sitting president, yet this campaign has turned out to be especially so for a simple reason. There is nothing else to talk about.

No national figures have taken up the baton and spelled out the policies that a Republican Congress would pursue in 2007. This is a stark contrast with 1994, when Newt Gingrich's Contract with America energized voters.

It's probably too late for Republicans to do anything about this oversight, but a glance at the state of economic policy in the U.S. suggests that whoever wins in November would have an enormous opportunity to do good. A list of the possibilities provides an interesting glimpse at what a new Contract with America might look like.

$1 Trillion Boon

The first step for the new Congress should be a tax overhaul that moves the current system toward a progressive consumption tax. The economic literature suggests that a well-designed system that maintains a distribution of tax burdens similar to today's could add 5 percent to 10 percent to gross domestic product over a decade.

A nice way to look at those estimates is to note that GDP might be about $1 trillion higher today if we had adopted such a reform a decade ago.

A new code could tax pollution more and capital less. It could lower the effective corporate tax rate significantly, and make the U.S. a competitive location for investment again.

Given all the available bounty from a wiser tax code, there is enough wiggle room for politicians of both parties to agree on a package that continues to present the wealthy with higher tax rates.

Balance the Budget

The second step for Congress should be to promise to balance the federal budget before the next election. Currently, the deficit is down to $248 billion. At the same time, government spending is $791 billion higher than it was when Bush took office. If the tax reform levels the playing field by removing or capping costly items such as the mortgage-interest deduction, then it would be easy to concoct a package of reduced spending and higher revenue that would balance the budget.

The third step for the new Congress should be to enact rules that ensure that the budget will remain in balance after 2008. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg introduced a model of such legislation recently, and something like it would pass muster.

Some have opposed budget rules on the grounds that they penalize tax cuts unfairly. Yet one thing that we have learned during the last six years is that if Congress is allowed to waive rules for tax cuts, they will waive them for spending as well, and rack up large deficits.

End Sarbanes-Oxley

The fourth step for the new Congress should be to roll back the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation that needlessly saddles America's companies with excessive accounting costs. There are countless signs that these costs have had a large effect on America's competitiveness, with large swaths of domestic capital escaping Sarbanes-Oxley by going private, or moving abroad. Our accounting rules should be rolled back to where they were before Sarbanes-Oxley.

The fifth step should be to restore balance to Social Security by reducing the growth rate of benefits and allowing a portion of each worker's payroll tax to be contributed to a personal account. The reduction in the growth of benefits could be higher for wealthier workers and lower for the less fortunate. By tinkering with benefits in that way, the concerns of those who are fond of the current system and oppose private accounts could be assuaged.

One could think of more policy options, but those five would be a great start. What a shame that the current election debate has failed to touch on such issues.

Kevin A. Hassett is a resident scholar and director of economic policy studies at AEI.