This time next year, we will be in the midst of the congressional midterm election circus ("Peanuts! ... Getcher peanuts here!"). That much, at least, is beyond dispute. What will be in dispute are 435 seats in the House, and a third of the Senate. I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict here what the Republican rallying cry will be next year at this time: Lower taxes!

Now that I've actually typed that out, it doesn't seem as much of a revelation as when the thought struck me out of the blue the other day. So allow me to provide some detail to what I think the Republican midterm playbook will contain.

Of course, predicting the actual outcome of the 2010 midterms is virtually impossible at this point, so you shouldn't listen to anyone (me included) who confidently says anything about what's going to happen. There are so many "ifs" and other caveats that it's a fool's game. Having said that, allow me to play the fool for a bit.

I bet I could come pretty close to guessing the outcome of the midterms if someone hopped into a time machine, zipped forward a year, and then came back to tell me two numbers from October, 2010: the unemployment rate, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Because knowing where the economy is going to be would tell you a lot about Democrats' chances for re-election. Of course, if you had a friend with a time machine, you would simply tell them to zip forward thirteen months (instead of twelve) and just tell you who won, so that argument kind of breaks down, I realize.

The Democrats will be odds-on favorites next year to retain control of both houses of Congress, and even perhaps pick up a few Senate seats -- with two big "ifs." If the economy in general (and unemployment in particular) has recovered substantially by this time next year, and if Democrats actually deliver on healthcare reform, then you can expect a pretty good showing for Democrats. If either of those things are not true, however, then Republicans may stage a comeback. If Republicans can argue "Democrats can't get anything done," or "Obama's stimulus wrecked the economy," and sell it to the voters because healthcare reform did not pass, or because unemployment is still going up, then they will likely have a decent shot at gaining seats, and perhaps even taking control of the House.

That's not much of a prediction, but then there is over a full year before we get there, and voters are notoriously fickle. Even that vague outline is subject to a few "ifs" of its own -- it would become irrelevant if there's a gigantic game-changing event (terrorist attack, Russia invading China, whatever) which defines the elections in ways unforeseeable at this time.

But, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that some sort of healthcare reform is signed into law by President Obama before 2010 dawns, and that the economy is in decent shape (not great shape, but decent shape). The stock market is around 11,000-12,000, and unemployment is still high, but gradually shrinking, as jobs slowly return and people start getting hired again. I think both of those are fairly realistic estimates of where we could indeed be a year from now -- neither overly optimistic or overly pessimistic (I said "some sort" of healthcare reform, to hedge my bets, you'll notice).

So it's pretty easy to see what Democrats will be running on next year: "Things are getting better!" But it's also fairly obvious, when you stop and think about it, what the Republicans will be running on: "No tax increases!" There will, in my opinion, be two flavors of this. The first will be that Obama has "broken his pledge" to not increase anyone's taxes who makes less than $250,000 a year. The second will be (believe it or not) that it is a dangerous time to increase rich people's taxes.

The latter is due to a quirk in the calendar. The midterms will be taking place just as an argument gets underway in Congress about the upcoming automatic repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Bush's tax cuts only lasted 10 years, since he used budget reconciliation to ram them through the Senate -- the same trick that Democrats are now eyeing to pass healthcare reform, it should be noted. Which means they're about to expire. Now, Congress can do nothing and taxes on the ultra-wealthy will return to the levels paid under Clinton. They don't have to vote on it, it's already going to automatically happen. But the Republicans will be screaming to the heavens that "Democrats are raising taxes!" even though they're not -- they're just letting the Bush tax cuts be hoist on the petard they were passed through the Senate with. But Republicans aren't known for splitting hairs in such a generous fashion, especially in an election year.

Also, Democrats have not realized that even if Obama signs a healthcare reform bill that it's not going to end the battle. No siree! Because Democrats are using an accounting trick in every competing healthcare reform bill, which may come back to bite them. Once Obama signs a bill, lots of people are going to expect some healthcare reform right away. They're going to be massively disappointed. Because it's not going to happen for four years. Conveniently, this puts it just after the next presidential election -- meaning Obama can campaign on "I reformed healthcare" without the plan having been put to the test yet. This also allowed Democrats to hold down the costs of healthcare reform, because they only have to project it out ten years. Meaning the cost projections are really for only six years. This accounting trick is used all the time, but that leaves four long years before much of anything happens. And what one Congress does can be undone by another Congress.

Meaning Republicans are going to be making political hay out of "give us Congress and we'll repeal Obamacare before the death panels start eyeing your grandmother!" If this doesn't work in 2010, you can expect it to be replayed in 2012 as well. Because the benefits of change haven't actually materialized, it'll be a lot easier politically for Republicans to argue they must be stopped.

One of these arguments is going to hinge on taxes. Because some taxes are going to be raised to pay for the plan, Republicans will use this fact to say that "everyone's" taxes are going up. They'll call anything under the sun a "tax" to make this argument, too (as they always do).

This is a weak point for the Democrats, because there is a shred of validity to the expected Republican argument. Outright taxing rich people was indeed discussed to pay for healthcare, and then quietly abandoned. Various schemes abound now within the bills moving through Congress, from taxing "Cadillac" health plans to fines for not buying insurance. But some of the most expensive health plans cover some very average people -- not the CEOs that politicians use to advance the argument. Union workers, for one, who have over the years foregone pay increases to win better health care. Union workers, in particular, in high-risk jobs such as coal mining and firefighting. Republicans will use this as: "Obama is raising taxes on our brave firefighters!" Which, in a way, will be true (unless high-risk workers are exempted, which has been discussed).

Any money paid by any American who is not making $250,000 a year will be used as a blunt club next year: "Obama lied! He's taxing everyone!" This is not a stretch to imagine -- in fact, it's quite obvious. Add to that the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and you can easily see which direction Republicans are going to be taking next year. Of course, by the Republican creed (which Democrats all-too-often cower in front of), it is never a good time to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. If the economy has just crashed, "you can't raise taxes in a recession -- look what happened in the 1930s." If the economy is recovering from a crash, "raising taxes will kill the recovery and we'll have a double-dip recession." If the economy is doing pretty good, "raising taxes will kill our growth rate and send us into a recession." If the economy is doing gangbusters, "see what low taxes can do for the economy -- why would you want to fool with that?" Which brings us back to the beginning of the cycle. Rinse and repeat, as they say.

Democrats have been even more timid than normal on this front for a very long time now. Right now, healthcare reform is sucking all the political oxygen out of the room in Washington. But next year, Congress will either have passed healthcare reform or given up trying until after the midterms. And the standard political model is to avoid like the plague any contentious issues during an election year (which means, incidentally, that one out of every two years, Congress doesn't fully do their job). Meaning you shouldn't look for Democrats to be pushing gay marriage or marijuana legalization (or any of dozens of other hot button issues) next year. But what this does is clear the decks in Congress, which means the Bush tax cut fight will be front and center, because it'll be a key part of the one thing Congress has to get done every year -- the budget. Being so front and center will play into Republicans' hands on the issue. Because they already know what they're going to say about it.

Democrats may be blindsided by the whole debate, unless they start thinking about it now. Because they can be out there saying "things are great!" but unless they prepare for an onslaught of a perennial Republican refrain ("tax-and-spend Democrats!"), then Democrats run the risk of appearing all over the map on the tax issue at precisely the time when voters are making up their minds whether to send them back to Washington or not. The smartest thing they can do, at this point, is to keep calling them the "Bush" tax cuts, to remind everyone of what they did to the economy. But next year, whether they like it or not, Democrats are going to actually have to take a stand on higher taxes for rich people. If they don't figure that out now, they're in for a rude surprise next year.

-- Chris Weigant