Proposals include tax cuts and an end to the Iran war. By Max Zahn The final sprint to Tuesday's midterm elections has kicked up a flurry of headlines about attack ads slung by candidates and verbal jabs thrown by current and former occupants of the White House.

An issue crucial to households' bank account balances, however, has preoccupied voters for the duration of campaign season: Affordability.

The Iran war set off a monthslong surge of inflation as fuel prices climbed in response to unrest in the Middle East, U.S. government data shows. In response to rising prices, a jump in bond yields has pushed up rates for loans like credit cards and mortgages, threatening to worsen the financial crunch.

Candidates for Congress have voiced a range of proposals meant to address the price woes, including tax cuts, an easing of regulations, a removal of tariffs and an end to the Iran war.

Some economists spoke to ABC News about whether the proposals could cool off inflation. Analysts praised some policies and criticized others, but they all acknowledged that no single measure could dramatically shift the price picture, at least anytime soon. Here's what to know about some affordability proposals made on the campaign trail, according to experts: End the war in Iran The Iran war triggered a rise of inflation earlier this year as a historic oil supply shortage pushed up prices for gasoline, groceries and other essentials.

Some candidates, mostly Democrats, have proposed an end to the Iran war as a means of dialing back price hikes.

"We were promised no new foreign wars, but here we are, 185 days into a new foreign war and Nebraskans are paying the price," Dan Osborn, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, said at a debate in September.

On his campaign website, Osborn calls for "ending the wars that drive up prices and costs the lives of American servicemen and women," pointing specifically to the Iran war.

When asked last month how he would bring down prices, Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., who is up for re-election, vowed to "end this disastrous war in Iran." Analysts who spoke to ABC News attributed elevated prices for gasoline and some other goods to ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has damaged oil infrastructure and forced firms to take up costly means of transporting crude.

The national average price of a gallon of gas stands at $4.16 a gallon, which marks an increase of $1.18 since the outset of the Iran war in February, according to AAA data. Gas prices jumped more than 9% in September from August, accounting for more than half of the overall price increase that month, the most recent month on record, U.S. government data showed.

"The war has a lot to do with what has happened to oil prices and of course to the refined product prices," Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institute's Hutchins Center for Fiscal and Monetary Policy, told ABC News. "Ending the war would be salient." President Donald Trump has acknowledged the rise in oil prices while maintaining that the war has been worth it to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He has also predicted that fuel prices will fall quickly when the conflict ends.

After the war, "oil prices will come plummeting down even lower than they were at the start of the conflict," Trump said in September at the United Nations General Assembly.

In the event of a peace deal in the Middle East, assuming it brought all fighting to a halt, oil prices would likely fall as supply challenges eased, but the reduction in price could take time as producers repair oil infrastructure in the region, some analysts said.

Gas prices, meanwhile, would likely fall at a delayed pace as retailers sell through refined product purchased while oil prices were at higher levels, they added.

"Even if we ended the Iran war today, I think it's going to take a while for those energy prices to come down," Kara Reynolds, an economist at American University, told ABC News. "We're underestimating how much of the capacity of production has been destroyed in that area."

Tax cuts President Trump's signature One Big Beautiful Bill, which included a range of tax reductions for both individuals and businesses, has drawn praise from Republican candidates on the trail. Many of them have touted tax cuts as a means of keeping money in people's pockets and relieving affordability woes.

Ashley Hinson, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Iowa, has called for such tax relief.

Hinson's campaign website says: "Ashley has always believed it is YOUR money, not the government's money. She has been laser focused on lowering taxes for working families and empowering all Iowans with opportunities." Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who is running for re-election, also mentions this approach on his campaign website. "Pete Ricketts is helping Nebraska families, workers, seniors, and small business owners keep more of their hard-earned income," the website says.

Economists who spoke to ABC News described tax cuts as a potential way to ease affordability woes by sheltering some of an individual's income from taxes.

At the same time, they said, a resulting uptick in consumer spending would risk heightened inflation in the event the increase in demand were to outpace the supply of goods. If a larger amount of money were to chase after a similar amount of goods, they said, prices may rise.

"In general, tax relief can give you income you can use to compensate for higher prices," Reynolds said. "The problem is when you lower taxes that can be seen as a fiscal stimulus. To the extent that's fueling more consumer spending it exacerbates inflation." Tax cuts also reduce revenue taken in by the federal government, which could add to the nation's $40.5 trillion debt in the absence of an equivalent reduction in spending, analysts said. A further increase in debt could hike interest rates for government debt as borrowers seek higher yields in return for increased risk of default.

A potential rise in Treasury rates, in turn, could hike borrowing costs for consumers, making it more expensive to take out a mortgage or pay off a credit card.

"Public debt is already rising and the cost of financing it is going up," Milesi-Ferretti said.

Ease regulations and improve supply Both Republican and Democratic candidates have proposed relief from regulations as a means of achieving greater efficiency, especially in the area of housing. Improved productivity, they say, would generate added supply, leading to lower prices.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has called for speeding up the permit process and easing environmental reviews as part of a plan to "Build, baby, build!" Members of both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which aims to reduce home prices by removing regulation and bolstering the supply. The measure became law in July.

Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., a co-author of the measure, advocates for its approach on his campaign website. "My bill cuts red tape and makes it more affordable to build new homes," the website says, presenting the effort as a means of "making the American dream affordable." Analysts who spoke to ABC News said solutions of this type could succeed in reducing home prices, though progress would likely take a matter of years due to the prolonged start-to-finish duration of housing construction.

"I like the supply-side ideas," said Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. "We've made it ridiculously expensive to build in America." Milesi-Ferretti, of the Brookings Institute, said a larger supply of homes could eventually ease prices -- but not anytime soon.

"If you want to make a case for boosting supply, that's a case to make. But it's a case you have to make with a realistic assumption of the time horizon," Milesi-Ferretti said.

Reynolds, of American University, questioned the potential impact of steps taken at the federal level, since she said zoning regulation often critical to the approval of new home construction typically falls under state or local jurisdiction.

"I think zoning law changes will have a much bigger impact on housing supply than anything the federal government can do," Reynolds said.

Removal of tariffs On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates have criticized tariffs issued by the White House as a cause of price increases. Many Democrats -- and some Republicans -- have called for a reduction of some levies.

In all, the current level of U.S. tariffs will cost the typical American household $1,077 per year, according to an estimate released by the Yale Budget Lab in August.

Levies imposed on Canada over the summer have drawn close attention from candidates in states near the Northern border. Many of those states play host to closely contested Senate races that may determine which party retains control of the upper chamber.

"Trump's tariffs have hurt American manufacturers, American workers, and our wallets," Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, said in a post on X last week.

In a campaign released last week, Michigan Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers urged an end to the "tariff war" with Canada.

Analysts said tariffs had pushed up some consumer prices, saying levies had raised costs for importers, who often pass along added expenses to shoppers. "Tariffs add to price pressure," said Holzer, of Georgetown University.

Still, the analysts said, it is difficult to anticipate the outcome of a reduction in levies, due in part to ambiguity about the exact price effects of a given tariff and uncertainty surrounding the willingness of retailers to ease prices once they've raised them.

"How much savings you'll see once you reduce the tariffs depends on what happened in the first place when tariffs were imposed," Milesi-Ferretti said.

The Trump administration has touted levies as a means of pressuring foreign companies to build facilities in the U.S. and employ American workers.< "By imposing tariffs to address non-reciprocal foreign trade practices, President Trump is incentivizing companies to reshore jobs and production lines back to American soil," the White House said in a memo issued last month.

In some cases, producers slashed wholesale prices paid by importers in an effort to take on some of the cost associated with a tariff. Some retailers, meanwhile, chose to swallow some of the additional tax rather than pass it to shoppers in the form of higher prices, Milesi-Ferretti added.

"There will be some benefit for consumers but it will take some time to work through the system," Milesi-Ferretti said. Reynolds voiced skepticism about substantial savings for shoppers.

"The fact is once firms have increased prices there's no incentive for them to lower the prices," Reynolds said.