Eight in 10 Americans complain about the state of the American economy these days, and this is usually the top issue for voters in an election. But this is one of the trickiest issues there is when it comes to making sure you give your vote to someone who will actually take the country where you want it to go. Almost every politician will be talking about how Americans are doing economically and offering up ideas to “help.” But before you leap – and as you wrestle with the three different approaches we’ve outlined in the Survival Kit – here are some ideas to keep in mind.

What can the federal government actually do?

Elected officials can influence the economy -- and that’s important -- but no matter how much they care or how smart they are, they can’t create a good economy by themselves.

We have a free market economy, which means that what private companies, investors, consumers, and workers do affects how well the economy functions. If we have learned anything from the current crisis on Wall Street, it's that decisions in the private sector matter to how well the economy does -- they matter big time.

That said, the federal government is a big player here. The government establishes the rules and regulations that determine how the companies, investors, and others can operate. The government sets national tax policy; who pays taxes and how much has a major impact on the overall economy. The government invests in research and helps keep roads, bridges and airports up to par; it regulates businesses from banks to toy manufacturers – all of these affect the health of the economy.

The government also helps set education policy, which is another factor in how well the economy performs, especially over the long haul. The quality of national leadership influences consumer and investor confidence, something the Wall Street crisis has demonstrated with hair-raising clarity. And the government can take short-term actions on the fly to try to pick up the pieces and ease the pain when the economy starts to unravel. How much the government ought to do, of course, was the core of the debate over the Wall Street bailout proposal this fall.

Energy prices: what are the options?

But there are limits to what government can do, and the price of gas is a prime example. Politicians would certainly be popular if they could reduce it. Higher gas prices affect the whole economy, generating higher prices for food and other products that have to be shipped in trucks and planes that use oil and gas. Certain industries, like airlines and tourism, get slammed when fuel prices are high, but everyone feels the pain.

But the federal government’s options are surprisingly limited. Oil prices are set in an open international market that’s somewhat similar to the stock market. There’s only so much oil being produced around the world and we're not the only ones who want it. In fact, people in rapidly growing countries like China and India want a lot of it and they seem willing to pay more and more for it. There’s some talk about government trying to reduce “speculation” in the oil markets or suing OPEC, but frankly, the U.S. government can’t easily control what happens in markets and countries outside our borders, so don’t hold your breath that those ideas will bring lower prices to the pump any time soon. The government could reduce the federal tax on gas – 18.4 cents per gallon, not counting what the states tack on – but that money is being used to pay for highways. Many economists believe prices would go up anyway, with the money going to oil producers instead of the government.

There’s talk of allowing more oil drilling in the U.S. or investing more in alternative fuels. In the long-term, those ideas could make a big difference, but probably wouldn’t affect the price of gas for years to come. It takes time to set up new oil rigs or develop new fuel sources, and the payoff comes over many years, not months. It’s nice when politicians join you in complaining about the economic problems that bother you, but you also need to be realistic about how much government can actually do.

Is it a long-term economic issue or a short-term one?

If you get three economists in a room, you'll probably end up with four different opinions about the economy, and that's part of what makes this issue complicated to understand. Economists are divided on whether some problems we see in today’s economy – turmoil in the mortgage industry, huge consumer debt, an iffy stock market, businesses making layoffs and holding back on hiring – are temporary setbacks that the economy will work through on its own, whether they’re reasonably serious and require government action, or whether they are early warning signs of fundamental economic problems that demand a major change in the country’s direction.

Not all economic problems are the same, and it’s important to remember that as painful and upsetting as they are, recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle. Children get the flu and throw up on the rug; economies go through recessions. As a nation, we've been really lucky on that score; there have only been two "official" recessions in the last 25 years. Things inevitably go wrong and you eventually have to cope with these problems as they come up, but overreacting can be a problem too.

Questions for voters to consider

On the other hand, sometimes there are deeper issues behind the normal cycles of the economy. Take the home mortgage industry. Is this a bubble that will resolve itself without additional government action, or would tougher regulation of the banking and lending industries help head off problems like this in the future? Would more government regulation mean that loans will be harder to get and that fewer people could have their own homes? Should the government step in to save troubled banks, lenders and borrowers, or would that just put taxpayer dollars into the hands of people who were way too greedy and irresponsible for their own good?

By far the most important question for voters to contemplate is the long-term health of the U.S. economy. Do we have the kinds of policies on taxes, federal spending and the budget, research, savings, investment and education that strike you as realistic, fair, wise and well-thought-through? In the next few years, the country faces several monumentally important decisions in these areas.

The tax cuts enacted under President Bush are set to expire in 2010. Should these tax cuts be extended because the economy does better when taxes are low, or should some or all of them be allowed to expire to help balance the federal budget which is expected to be over $400 billion in the red this year? Or should some or all of them be allowed to expire to pay for things Americans say they want such as more government help with health insurance? Which do you think is most important for the economy – keeping taxes at current rates, reducing them further, balancing the budget or moving forward on universal health care? Are the candidates you’re considering being direct and straightforward in talking about the choices the country faces here? Are their numbers adding up, or are they hoping that you won't take the time to add them up yourself?

What makes an economy "good" anyway?

One basic question that politicians sometimes skip over is how we actually define “a good economy.” The U.S. economy is growing; the productivity of the American worker keeps rising. Even with our current troubles, unemployment and taxes are historically low. At the same time, the country is over $9 trillion dollars in debt, prices are rising, and as a whole, Americans spend more than they save. The wages of average Americans have been essentially flat for 30 years, and the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans has been growing.

Half of the public believes the country is divided into “two groups – the haves and have nots” – a perception that has increased by more than ten points since 2004. On the other hand, a solid majority (59 percent) say they consider themselves “haves,” and that number has remained pretty much the same for some time.

People tend to focus on different facets of the economy; those in the workforce tend to focus on unemployment and food and gas prices, while many investors and retirees focus on the stock market and keeping inflation low. For some, the most important goal is keeping the economy growing and providing the opportunity for people to become whatever their own talents, skills and drive will allow them to be. To others, the most important goal is providing a decent, secure lifestyle for middle-class and working Americans. A lot of Americans might say they want both, but as you'll see in the So What's the Plan section, there is some tension between the two.