WASHINGTON — The Concord Coalition is urging the Commission on Presidential Debates to devote a significant portion of debate time next year to the candidates’ plans for dealing with the nation’s growing fiscal difficulties.
While the nation faces many challenges, Concord leaders said, “the nation’s unsustainable budget policy hangs over all of them, because it affects the resources that can be devoted to competing priorities and the size of the future economy that will be called upon to produce those resources.”
WASHINGTON — The Concord Coalition is urging the Commission on Presidential Debates to devote a significant portion of debate time next year to the candidates’ plans for dealing with the nation’s growing fiscal difficulties.
While the nation faces many challenges, Concord leaders said, “the nation’s unsustainable budget policy hangs over all of them, because it affects the resources that can be devoted to competing priorities and the size of the future economy that will be called upon to produce those resources.”
Concord made the debate suggestion in a letter Monday to Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, co-chairmen of the commission. It was signed by Concord’s co-chairs, Mike Castle and John Tanner, and the organization’s executive director, Robert L. Bixby.
“Concerns about the rising debt and the economy are in fact intertwined, which underscores the importance of hearing how the presidential candidates propose to deal with the nation’s finances,” the letter says. “There is a direct link between the candidates’ fiscal policy proposals and their economic visions for the nation.”
Federal deficits are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to rise again just as the next president takes office, and to continue rising under current law to over $1 trillion a year in 2025. This would push the federal debt steadily upward through the next two presidential terms and beyond.
Concord also points to warnings from the Social Security and Medicare trustees that those critical programs, without corrective action, will deteriorate over the next president’s term, putting increasing pressure on the overall federal budget. Social Security’s Disability Insurance program, in fact, “will be tottering on the verge of insolvency right around the time the 2016 presidential debates will be taking place.”
One approach, Concord suggests, would be for each candidate to be given 15 minutes in a debate to lay out a budget plan, highlighting major proposals and projecting deficits and debt. The moderator could then devote 30 minutes to follow-up questions. The candidates would also be invited to submit written material on their budget proposals that could be accessed online.
“Because the budget, of necessity, must encompass a wide range of tax and spending issues, beginning the first presidential debate with this discussion would set an appropriate overall framework for examining more specific proposals,” Concord said. “By contrast, without a budgetary context, candidates’ proposals would not be subject to a fiscal reality check.”
Other formats could work as well, Concord said, adding that the overall goal should be to simply acknowledge that budgets are “the essence of governing” rather than just an abstract concept.
“Voters should not have to wait until the winter of 2017 to find out how, or whether, the next president plans to achieve a sustainable budget,” Concord told the commission. “They should hear about that during the campaign when they can assess the candidates’ proposals and make informed judgments on their credibility.”
Media Contact: Steve Winn, (703) 254-7828 [email protected]
###
The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Since 1992, Concord has worked to educate the public about the causes and consequences of the federal deficit and debt, and to develop realistic solutions for sustainable budgets. For more fiscal news and analysis, visit concordcoalition.org and follow us on Twitter: @ConcordC
