The horse race reporting on the presidential primaries obscures a number of truly important issues that candidates are not being asked about, even in television debates. Thursday night's Republican debate in South Carolina generally displayed Fox News asking good questions and almost all the candidates making very good impressions. But the range of issues in these debates is too narrow. Here are some important matters affecting the next White House that ought to be addressed in detail:

* Infrastructure. The Neal Peirce column for release January 13 will raise, among other things, the present campaign's avoidance of the nation's fading urban infrastructure and the continuing poor state of transportation. Do we want a strong economy? The little the Congress can do in the present situation actually does include improving roads and bridges and creating a strong passenger rail system that gives auto commuters and inter-city passengers more options. Had recent Congresses acted in this general area more aggressively, we would have money flowing into this job-creating, productivity expanding sector now, just when the economy could use the boost.

* Taxes and tax systems. This is the time, still early in the primary season, for candidates to air their respective plans. Economist Richard Rahn performed a service in The Washington Times on Wednesday with a brief review, at least, of the different candidates' ideas and stands. But, over all, the topic has received far less attention than it deserves if people's real concerns about the economy are to be addressed. The Democrats want, effectively, to raise taxes on the money available for capital investments just at the moment that the long expansion ushered in by the Bush tax cuts is sputtering.

* Entitlement mania. Why do even Republican candidates get sucked into big government health care proposals when the danger of adding a huge new federal entitlement is so obvious? Why, in contrast, have we simply stopped discussing the fiscal crunch coming in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as the Baby Boomers age? The problem isn't better today than it was four and eight years ago, it's worse. In all the campaign and media focus-group-generated buzz about "change", has anyone asked about how the American taxpayer is going to be able to handle all this? Does "change" really mean we go from bad to worse?

* The War on Terrorists. Yes, the issue gets discussed, but thanks to the major media, it is usually in the context of how quickly the U.S. can withdraw from Iraq. The reality facing America, rather, is the need to do more to combat the terrorists--and their ideology--at home and abroad. Iraq, as Sen. McCain points out, is now a success being ignored. It's almost as if we are embarrassed to find out that we are winning. On the other hand, the media and the campaigners also are ignoring deteriorating conditions in places like Somalia where Al Qaeda would like to regroup. Why, meanwhile, are we still doing such a poor job in the public relations battle ("public diplomacy," or, if you will, propaganda)? Surely the candidates have some ideas on how to do better. As is, the presidential campaign is effectively trivializing the potential for an historic advance for peace and freedom in the Middle East and around the world.

* Energy independence. Was it sheer cynicism that caused the media and the candidates in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses to over-emphasize the potential of ethanol? The way the topic of energy has disappeared suddenly would suggest that the answer is yes. So how about some serious questions regarding the real options for America, including our own oil and gas reserves and, more importantly, the huge opportunity to cut gasoline usage through plug-in hybrid vehicles? Do these candidates have anything new to tell us on this vital subject as oil hovers at $100 a barrel and undermines our economic growth? They probably do, if they are asked.

* The social issues; aka, the science issues. The Left is dying to debate the supposed "Republican war against science." Well, let's have that debate this year, from Darwinism to abortion to embryonic stem cell research to assisted suicide to the radical animal rights movement. At stake is what it means to be human. None of the candidates has really concentrated on this spread of related social issues that will face the next president. Are we going to debate them only after the 2009 inaugural? Throw in the exaggerated claims about global warming and you really must raise question of whether government-financed science lobbies are attempting to dictate public policies beyond their competence--and suppressing the academic freedom of scientists who dissent from their nostrums.

* Immigration beyond fences and amnesty. Apparently, almost everybody now wants to defend our border integrity first and to provide a route to citizenship for some immigrants only after that is accomplished. Fine, but meanwhile, Congress fails to deal with H1-B visas for high skill immigrants (think of technology engineers) that the economy needs to remain competitive. Congress and the candidates also seem deaf to the cultural aspect of the immigration issue, the sense that Latinos have that Americans look down on them. Actually, there has never been such a warm American abrazo for things Latino, from music to food to travel. We should be talking--smart candidates should be talking--about how to help our Mexican and other Latin American neighbors to build up their own economies so that there will be less pressure to enter ours by any but legitimate means. We can do that and still defend our borders. Illegal immigration indirectly breeds racism, but economic ties and development breed equal partnerships and sincere mutual respect.