What an opportunity. Iowa will be thick with presidential hopefuls for the next several months, and do you ever have an important topic to bring up.

There will be much time spent on social issues. But we have plenty of religious leaders and moral thinkers and example setters for these things. People who, fortunately, never have to run for office.

This is your chance to focus on something that politicians actually are supposed to handle – the federal budget. The recent debacle in D.C. reminded us once again that our elected officials need guidance, urging, inspiration and help.

When a would-be presidential candidate pontificates on whether it would be better to cut $1.2 trillion or $3.7 trillion, don’t let him or her get away with it. The numbers are meaningless without the specifics.

First, find out how they think budget cutting will affect unemployment. Is it harmful but necessary for the long term? Should it be quick or gradual? How do they see different levels of cutting affecting the unemployment figures?

Then ask what they would cut. If they don’t have a list, get their reactions to the lists painstakingly put together by people who are not filled with the self-esteem needed for a presidential campaign.

The bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force suggests cutting the 287-ship U.S. Navy to 230, instead of building it to 313 as the Navy would prefer. It would save money, but it would cost jobs. What do the candidates think?

The commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson recommended eliminating 200,000 federal jobs over time. It would save money, but it would cost jobs. Where do they stand on this one?

The group of U.S. senators known as the “Gang of Six” called for cutting $11 billion from agriculture spending across a 10-year timeline. The candidates should tell Iowa’s voters what they believe.

Remember, Iowans, with a great spot in the political process comes great responsibility.