I know. It's campaign time. Time for our politicians to promise us more and more. Of course, it is always someone else who will pick up the tab. Increasingly it is the young who are not only asked to pay more for others and get less for themselves, but who are being denied their fundamental democratic rights to share equally in deciding just what type of government we should have.

What if President William Howard Taft and his Congress had written laws that specified how all the government’s revenues at the beginning of the 21st century were to be spent? Preposterous? Well, the laws on the books today not only dictate how all revenues collected in 2030 and beyond will be spent, they also predetermine most of the next president’s spending. No wonder the campaign promises of the presidential candidates sound hollow.

Almost nothing better reflects our federal government priorities than the budget. The arcane rules governing how budget numbers are presented, however, totally obscure what's really happening. Turning out even more lights, every modern president and Congress play an accounting game that makes it seem like they aren't accountable for how spending changes over time.

When Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spar over health mandates, they're dealing with only one piece of an intriguing policy dilemma: how to achieve meaningful health reform. A mandate can nudge many Americans to buy a modest insurance package, if we make it as simple, enforceable, and effective as possible. Practical ways of making the mandate work, as well as constraining costs, will be the real challenge confronting the next president.

In the policy world, elected officials often consider anything more than one year long term. Charles Rangel (D-NY), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, likes to quip "I don't buy green bananas" when asked to comment on policies for 2010 or beyond. But consider the other end of the spectrum. Orthodox history traces civilization itself back only 5,000 or 6,000 years (e.g., Sumer, Persia, China, Egypt); even 3,000 years ago, few people led what we'd call civilized lives, despite the beginnings of kingships under King David or the Zhou dynasty in China or the advances of the Mayan civilization. From this perspective, most of us alive today will live through 1 percent or more of civilization. And while each year's changes may seem small or marginal, they compound profoundly over a lifetime.

Everyone knows that 2008 promises to be a bellwether year, rife with dramatic changes already glimpsed. Some harbingers of change are obvious. A new president will be elected—though campaigns hide as much as reveal what that president will choose or be forced to do. The subprime mortgage market also portends dramatic changes in the financial markets in 2008 and beyond. But perhaps the biggest change of all is a sleeper so far—the first year of a scheduled drop-off in employment growth that will last for some 30 years running. If this decline is left unchecked, the net impact on employment will be far greater and longer lasting than the temporary employment dip during the Great Depression.

My advice to presidential campaign staffers this season is simple: stop the pandering. Run first and foremost on the one fundamental issue that matters most to the public—that you will restore the stature and integrity of the Office of President of the United States. In other words, treat as solemn and serious the oath that the Constitution requires every president to take.

If we're going to have a club whose members pay fairly low individual tax rates, we need to determine who deserves membership on the basis of principles. Few argue that letting hedge fund managers and private equity partners in the club furthers either progressivity or efficiency principles. The one legitimate argument for these club members' special status is simplification—continuing to treat all types of income the same among members of partnerships. Hardly convincing at all is the related argument that we shouldn't pick on this particular set of partners when plenty of others (say, individuals who manage their own portfolios) get the same low tax rates.

As time goes on, more conflicts seem to flair between charities and businesses, but collaboration is also occurring like never before. These new collaborations and conflicts, and consequent legislative attempts to ensure that charities really are "charitable," can be tricky. But before attempting to judge all these attractions and repulsions between the two sectors, let's hold our peace and ask what is fostering these new relationships in the first place.

Louisville is back in the news these days because its plan for integrating schools, like Seattle's, was overturned recently by the Supreme Court. However divided is opinion over this decision, it should force us to look more deeply into what a well-integrated society means and requires. Public debate should range far beyond the use of race as a factor in determining which kids can go to which schools.