With the presidential and vice presidential debates behind us, it’s time to take a look at the issues that weren’t discussed. Sadly, that’s a pretty lengthy list. Each of the three debates failed to discuss many critical issues in-depth, either ignoring them completely or simply glossing them over.

Thanks to the light debate schedule, we didn’t have any debates focused on certain topics, like the economy or foreign policy – not that candidates ever actually restrain themselves to those areas. In an ideal world, we’d have way more than three debates, with focuses on certain areas that the moderators strictly enforce, turning off mics when they ramble off-topic. Then we might get some real answers from the candidates.

Sadly, we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where we only got one debate with each matchup of candidates, and the moderating left a lot to be desired. There wasn’t much of a serious discussion about policy at all, in any of the debates, just a lot of ridiculous sniping. Take health care, for instance. Harris rightly pointed out that Trump had no plan to replace “Obamacare” (which is never going to be repealed anyway), and he offered a vague and insufficient reply. That was one of the most memorable exchanges on health care in any of the debates.

The real issue, though, that all of the candidates preferred to completely ignore was the national debt, the total sum we owe as a nation, and our deficit, the difference between revenue and expenses.

In fiscal year 2024, the total deficit was almost $1.9 trillion; the national debt is a staggering $35 trillion. In terms of an American household with a $70,000 income, that’s like having $95,000 in annual expenses while having a total debt of over half a million dollars. That debt alone might be sustainable, especially if it were tied to a fixed asset like a home, but it’s not if you just keep adding to it with no plan to fix it. This is one of the most important issues facing the country, and it was almost entirely ignored in the debates.

If you’re wondering why we haven’t gone bankrupt already, it’s complex. A sovereign default, which is what bankruptcy is called for nation-states, works this way: A country enters into negotiations with its debtors, often the International Monetary Fund, to restructure its spending to make its payments. For the U.S., our ability to avoid that fate is enhanced because the U.S. dollar is the most prominent reserve currency – the currency that other countries use to hold their own assets. A sovereign default by the United States is essentially impossible under these circumstances, but the predominance of the dollar as a reserve currency is being challenged.

Countries as a whole have begun to move away from the U.S. dollar, and the BRIC coalition, led by Brazil, Russia, India and China, is seeking to hasten that trend. This is a real threat to the United States and one that both candidates ought to have serious plans to address. Trump, at least, has promised to impose a 100% tariff on countries that abandon the dollar. That’s a step in the right direction and a rational use of tariffs, unlike his proposal – embraced by Rep. Jared Golden – to impose a sweeping 10% tariff on all imported goods.

If other countries begin to make progress in abandoning the dollar, it could hurt our ability to carry such a massive debt and deficit, which is why such proposals deserve a harsh response. That’s not enough, though. We also need serious structural reforms of federal taxes and spending. Sadly, neither candidate is proposing that. Instead, they’re committed to a patchwork of policies designed to win the election, and down-ballot candidates are following their lead.

On taxes, both are proposing a variety of special breaks, like on tipped income and expanding the child tax credit, in populist appeals without considering the sweeping changes our tax code needs. We ought to be having a grand discussion about reinventing the entire tax structure, but both candidates are desperate to avoid that. Similarly, both are desperate to avoid any real discussion about entitlement programs, pledging to preserve Social Security and Medicare as they are. While all of these positions may be politically popular, they’re not realistic. The country needs a real debate about taxes, spending, trade and the economy. Unfortunately, it looks like both parties would rather ignore that this year.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel