Senate Republicans want a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Senate Democrats want one, too. Money – some $350 billion over the next decade – has been set aside to pay for a benefit. Two plans, one from Senate centrists and one from moderate Democrats, are ready to be introduced. But for reasons that give the Senate its reputation as the arena of the opaque, neither side is anything more than hopeful that a debate on the issue will take place before the August recess and the beginning of fulltime campaigning for the fall election.

Part of the cause of this pessimism is the election itself. The party that can claim it passed its own plan has a powerful weapon in the campaign. Democratic Sens. Bob Graham and Zell Miller, whose drug plan includes 50 percent coverage up to $4,000 in expenses, then complete coverage after that, urge colleagues to “reject any proposal that does not provide a prescription drug benefit that is guaranteed, affordable and meaningful.” Because those three standards don’t mean anything in particular in this context, the comment can be read to conclude that any plan that is not theirs should be refused. Unfortunately for them, however, their Democratic colleagues aren’t sure that this plan is a good idea because, among other things, it costs $425 billion over eight years and requires reauthorization in 2010.

The centrist plan, called the tripartisan plan because independent Sen. Jim Jeffords is among the original co-sponsors, establishes a premium at about $35 a month, sets co-pays based on income and offers full medical coverage starting at $6,000 for out-of-pocket expenses. Its costs matches the amount of money set aside for the next decade and assumes that prices for prescription drugs will be negotiated to hold down expenses. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins also are original co-sponsors, as is Democrat John B. Breaux.

Majority Leader Tom Daschle has a difficult choice. He can continue to stall – he still, after all, hasn’t found time for a budget resolution, expected back in March, the Defense bill is pressing and there’s a good chance the Senate will hit the next fiscal year, beginning in October, without a budget at all given the current pace. Or he can let the Medicare drug debate go forward with a weakly supported Democratic proposal and a more popular plan that risks giving Republicans a win on an important issue close to the election.

The right thing to do is get the issue moving. The practical thing for him to do is let it go forward and claim that all the good parts of the tripartisan bill came from Democrats and look how well Democrats cooperated to get a bill passed. Seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs probably do not care who gets credit as long as a bill is passed that results in savings.

But between congressional recesses in July and August and the deadlines approaching for other essential business, time is short for the Medicare benefit. To make it happen, leadership from both parties must work together long enough to remove Medicare as a campaign issue. That will mean putting senior voters ahead of senior votes, something Congress has had a hard time doing.