The experts interviewed this week say no matter which party wins control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections around America, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will be able to push many bills through Congress.

The reason, they say, is that the minority party will still likely retain enough seats to block legislation using the filibuster, a stall tactic that allows the opposition to block divisive policy.

“It’ll be the definition of a lame duck presidency,” said David W. Brady, Deputy Director of the Hoover Institute, a public policy think tank, referring to the current administration’s potentially unproductive final two years.

Moreover, the Bush administration may face opposition not just from Democrats, but also from Republicans trying to differentiate themselves from an administration suffering from low opinion in public polls.

“The two parties are going to start posturing for 2008,” said John Ellwood, UC Berkeley Professor of Public Policy.

“If the Democrats lose, the Republicans will force them to take stances they could use in the 2008 elections.”

In order to have a majority in the House, the Democrats need to win 15 seats. The Democrats need six seats to have a majority in the Senate, where 33 of the 100 seats are being contested.

According to Ellwood, the Senate race is a more crucial one. A possible Democratic victory in the Senate could have long-term effects if Bush has an opportunity to make another Supreme Court appointment. “If the Democrats carry the Senate, Bush cannot get an Alito type through,” Ellwood said, referring to Bush’s recent appointment of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

If the Democrats win the House, the party will try to push legislation on immigration and minimum wage.

“One thing that will surely move is the immigration bill,” David W. Brady said.

Democratic support for Bush’s immigration bill suggests success for such legislation. That bill includes a program that would offer “guest worker” status to undocumented workers.

“It’s such a contentious issue,” said Henry Brady, UC Berkeley Professor of Political Science. “The guest worker program is one of the most moderate plans.”

While some Republicans support the program because it could help businesses that rely on immigrant laborers, most GOP lawmakers oppose it. However, with a Democrat majority in the House, the bill might make its way to the President’s desk.

Other legislation that has not moved forward under Republican leadership includes minimum wage. “We are way down on what the minimum wage is in historical terms of real wages,” the political science professor said.

The bi-partisan minimum wage proposal would increase the wage from $5.15 an hour, the lowest amount since 1955, to $7.25. Democrats and moderate Republicans have long championed a $2.10 minimum wage increase over a period of three years – first to $5.85 in January 2007, then to $6.55 in June 2008, and finally to $7.25 in June 2009.

Though the House approved the minimum wage increase in July, Senate leaders have yet to move the legislation through.

“The Democrats will push it,” said David W. Brady of the Hoover Institute. Ellwood agrees that Democrats will bring up minimum wage legislation. “I don’t think Bush will veto it,” he said.

If Democrats win either the House or Senate, the party could also advocate Congressional investigations.

Congress has not initiated significant hearings on voting machines, global warming, or the prescription drug plan, Henry Brady said. “It’s been derelict in doing its constitutional duty of holding feet to the fire.”

He noted that, up until now, Congress has spent only 10 hours investigating the abuse inflicted by U.S. soldiers on detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has urged for the impeachment of President Bush. He believes Bush mislead the American public into war, subverted CIA intelligence, and created Iraqi connections to al-Qaeda where none existed.

“The danger to Democrats is if they overreact,” said David Brady. “If they push too hard to the left, if they try to impeach the President, that will hurt their chances for 2008.”

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi recognized that danger and strongly ruled out the idea of Bush impeachment proceedings.

According to David Brady, Republicans hoping to distance themselves from the Bush Administration’s military policies may pressure the President to withdraw troops from Iraq. In a time when most Americans support an end to the war in Iraq, Republican presidential candidates for 2008 have a political incentive to propose Iraq policy changes.

In a recent press conference, General William Casey Jr., the top U.S. armed forces commander in Iraq, suggested that Iraqi troops may be “completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security” in 12 – 18 months.

Historically, the current administration’s party usually suffers during mid-term elections held during wartime. In 1942, the Democratic Party lost to the Republicans, even as the public supported Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s World War II efforts. Later, in 1950, 1966 and 1970, the parties represented by Presidents Truman, Johnson and Nixon all lost in the mid-term elections. The year 2002 proved to be an anomaly, the only time in recent history that a wartime president succeeded.

David Brady at Hoover parallels President Bush’s final two years to the end of Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency in 1967 and 1968, after the Democrats lost seats.

“He got nothing done,” Brady said. “It forced him out of the presidency. He couldn’t pass any public policy, and he couldn’t get any more support for the war.”

If Republicans retain the House and Senate, they may make another push for tax cuts, but they still do not have the votes to close the deal if Democrats choose to filibuster, Brady said.

The President may also turn more of his attention overseas. David Brady foresees heightened pressure on the President to speak directly to Syria, Iran and Korea.

Often times, Presidents shift their focus from domestic to foreign policy in their final two years in office. Policy friction at home coupled with the desire to leave an international legacy has led past leaders down that path.

Still, political experts such as Henry Brady discount that theory in Bush’s case. “I think he turned away from domestic issues five years ago,” Brady said.