ax cut proposals and abortion have received a vigorous airing. Al Gore and Bill Bradley have had a mostly healthy debate on race. George W. Bush and John McCain have discussed religion, mostly in a divisive way. But too many major policy issues have not been addressed at all, or only perfunctorily, by any of the candidates for president. For instance:
One tax issue never mentioned is the impact of the Social Security tax on low income workers. The tax is 6.2 percent on incomes up to $76,200, which means that someone making $40,000 a year pays $2,480, while a $200,000 income levels results in a tax of $4,724, proportionally much less. The income subject to the tax has gone up over the last 20 years, but far slower than top-end salaries. The Social Security program is popular because all segments of the population contribute to it and receive benefits, but surely it is time to adjust the tax to reflect the burden it imposes on workers with moderate or low pay.
An abiding national scandal is the fact that 43 million Americans have no health insurance. Bill Bradley, to his credit, proposes a plan to reduce that number, mostly through tax incentives that would make coverage more affordable, while Al Gore favors smaller steps. But neither comes close to the universal coverage promised by Gore and candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, and the Republicans are nowhere on this issue. Meanwhile, the number of uninsured has risen by 4.4 million since 1992. There is a consensus that society has an obligation to provide for the medical needs of the elderly through Medicare and for poor children through Medicaid. Are adults of working age any less worthy?
American peace and security have not annulled history's ebb and flow. Crucial strategic and moral questions will have to be faced by the next president and should be aired by the candidates. Voters should know how the candidates propose to deal with Russian aggression on its borders and the debilitating effects of the Russian kleptocracy. There has been a superficial discussion of Beijing's threats to Taiwan, but the crucial elements of China policy require more substantive debate, as does the willingness of the candidates to invest in a comprehensive peace for the Middle East.
If ever there was a moral question that cried out for public debate, it is the horror of slavery in Sudan under the regime of the National Islamic Front. The branding and selling of human beings in southern Sudan should be condemned by any American president. The candidates should be telling voters what they would do to break Khartoum's food blockade in southern Sudan and to end that regime's genocidal policies of forced Islamization.
One issue that bridges foreign and domestic policy is the environment, a problem that respects no boundaries. Since 1997, when 159 nations meeting in Kyoto agreed to reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming the climate, carbon pollution in the United States has only increased.
Of all the candidates, Gore may bear the most responsibility for this lapse because he went to Kyoto and held himself up as the premier protector of the environment. Bradley says he would pursue the Kyoto goals ''in a cost-effective manner.'' The Republicans are skeptical. All four need to address fossil-fuel pollution and ways to lessen it.
Voters should demand that candidates address such issues, more crucial to the nation's future than much of what passes for campaign debate today.
