Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

As threat looms, they snooze

By PHILIP GAILEY
Published June 10, 2007

Climate change is, as Al Gore says, "an inconvenient truth." But it's not the only one clouding our future. The nation is facing the fiscal equivalent of global warming, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are taking it seriously. In fact, they rarely even acknowledge there is a problem. Where is H. Ross Perot when we need him?

In the presidential debates so far, which have been about as edifying as a frog-jumping contest, the candidates have delivered their poll-tested and scripted responses to questions about climate change, terrorism, the Iraq war, health care and immigration - all important issues. But the issue they avoid - perhaps because it appears to be a nonissue with the press and the voters - is the approaching crisis in entitlement spending. The reason is simple - none of the candidates has the political courage to tell Americans that the retirement of the baby boom generation will soon force the nation to start making some painful choices between taxing and spending. Business as usual will mean a steady decline in our quality of life.

The issue was taken up in 2005 by a coalition made up of the bipartisan Concord Coalition, the liberal Brookings Institution, the conservative Heritage Foundation and the comptroller general of the United States, David M. Walker. This group is traveling the country trying to do what Al Gore has done on global warming - raise public awareness of the issue and force presidential candidates to offer more than sound bites and bromides for dealing with the problem. They call their effort the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. But their warning doesn't seem to be disturbing the sleep of our political leaders or the public.

The issue should be at the center of the 2008 presidential campaign debates because the next president will have to start making some crucial decisions about the government's fiscal policy.

In a recent statement, leaders of the Wake-Up Tour said: "In January 2008, two significant events will take place. The first actual votes will be cast in the presidential nomination contests and the first of the 78-million baby boomers will qualify for Social Security retirement benefits. By 2010, during the next president's term, the Social Security cash surplus will be declining. In 2011, the baby boomers will begin to qualify for Medicare."

Then things start getting really serious.

The cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already comprise 40 percent of the federal budget, and if nothing is done, that number would grow to 75 percent by 2040. With the worst of the fiscal crisis two or three decades away, the temptation is for the president and the Congress to dump the hard decisions on their successors. Baby boomers are counting on their full share of entitlement benefits, even if it means the cost will have to be paid by their children and grandchildren in the form of crushing tax increases and a lower standard of living.

Leaders of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour believe the presidential candidates in both parties owe the voters some straight talk about how they would deal with the fiscal challenges ahead. This coalition for fiscal sanity has even proposed a list of questions for the presidential candidates.

For example:

Do they support strong budget controls, including a "pay as you go" rule for new spending and tax cuts?

What specific spending cuts, if any, would they support?

What is the candidates' vision for Social Security and Medicare and are they prepared to raise taxes and/or reduce benefits to make these programs solvent in the future?

Each political party should devote at least one presidential debate exclusively to this issue. The debate format should allow for a serious and extended discussion, not the usual two-minute answers we have become used to. Journalists should stay out of the debate and allow a panel of experts - maybe leaders of the Wake-Up Tour - to ask the questions and demand serious answers. The candidates should be told that a promise to appoint another blue-ribbon commission to study the problem and come up with recommendations will count as a dodge, not an answer. If they don't have ideas of their own, they should simply say so.

I can't think of a better way to start separating politicians from leaders. But I'm not naive. It's not likely to happen because the candidates don't want to go there. Like Scarlett O'Hara, they'll think about it tomorrow.

[Last modified June 9, 2007, 20:09:11]