Back in the dim and distant past of 1992, it seemed both the Republican and Democratic parties had worked out a backroom deal: "Let's just not mention the deficit in the presidential campaign this year." Neither party saw it as a winning issue, and so they both apparantly agreed to ignore it completely.

Enter a quirky Texan with a lot of money to spend named H. Ross Perot. He forced the issue into the campaign in a big way. He started renting television time in half-hour chunks and giving what were essentially infomercials on the subject of the deficit. He forced Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to confront the issue. And he also got almost one vote in five on election day.

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

I mention all this history because of a column by Robert J. Samuelson in today's Washington Post. It's an excellent column which recognizes a problem that the candidates are all ignoring, and then throws down a gauntlet to start a conversation on the issue.

First, the problem:

Just in case you haven't noticed, the major presidential candidates -- Republican and Democratic -- are dodging one of the thorniest problems they would face if elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers. In last week's CNN-YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. "The best solution," he said, "is a bipartisan effort to fix it." Brilliant. There's already a bipartisan consensus: Do nothing.

And his proposed solution:

As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: "Facing Up to an Aging America." Six leading think tanks would be invited to participate: three liberal -- the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Urban Institution -- and three conservative: the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Earlier in the column, Samuelson shows that he is aware that (once again) both political parties see this issue as a loser on the campaign trail, because it would force them to face certain realities about the size of government which could hurt them:

Liberals might have to concede that government could grow too large and that spending and benefit cuts are needed. Conservatives might have to concede that, even with plausible benefit and spending cuts, tomorrow's government would be bigger than today's. For think-tank scholars, brutal candor might offend friends and political mentors. For the ambitious, it might jeopardize future appointments to top government jobs.

He then finishes by directly challenging the presidential candidates to get involved with the debate:

After an introduction describing America's aging, each think tank would receive 35 pages to respond to questions and to present its vision. Are the looming budget changes good for America? If so, how would they be financed? If not, why not? How could adverse consequences be avoided? The think tanks would be expected to be specific. Higher eligibility ages? Well, how much and when? Higher taxes? Which ones and how much? If a think tank rejected the invitation, the publisher would run 35 blank pages and an explanation: "Think tank X declined to participate."

This approach would force think tanks to compete. They'd have to make their vision of the future explicit within the untidy framework of government's past commitments. It would illuminate the connections between defense spending, retirement benefits, health care, economic growth and much more. Writing for a general audience, it would favor plain English, not the usual technobabble. If published in April, the book might prod the presidential candidates to address the future. If they didn't, it would demonstrate the magnitude of their evasion.

I have to say, I heartily endorse this suggestion. Social Security is not currently a crisis, nor will it likely be for decades to come. But there's an easy way to "fix" it, which I actually addressed in my very first Huffington Post column -- lower the flat payroll tax from 6.2% to 6.0 percent, and at the same time eliminate entirely the cap on earnings. This would give a whopping 94% of working Americans a tax cut, and would force the remaining 6% to pay the same flat tax everyone else pays instead of getting a massive tax break which only wealthy earners get.

But Medicare is another kettle of fish entirely. It is projected to go broke in about 10 years. That is not a lot of time to fix the system. And it will happen right when all the baby boomers will be qualifying for it.

This is a gigantic fiscal crisis, staring us in the face. But from the campaign trail?

[Sound of lone cricket chirping.]

Of course, getting a "sugar daddy" (as Samuelson puts it) to pay to publish a book of think tank ideas would indeed advance the debate. But to really push the issue, the field is ripe for a billionaire political gadfly to champion it (paging Mr. Bloomberg?).

Which brings me right back to where I started from:

Where's H. Ross Perot when you need him?

-- Chris Weigant