Now that the full cycle of debates has come to an end, there is at least one clear winner: the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Two questions in the vice-presidential debate, along with two from Chris Wallace in last night’s presidential showdown, referred to the committee, which is devoted to deficit reduction, and treated its analyses and proposals as matters of settled fact.

Near the end of the debate, Mr. Wallace declared, “The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has looked at both of your plans, and they say neither of you has a serious plan that is going to solve the fact that Medicare’s going to run out of money in the 2020s, Social Security is going to run out of money in the 2030s.” Mr. Wallace went on to suggest that only a “grand bargain” combining tax increases with Medicare and Social Security benefit cuts could solve the problem.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is an eminently respectable organization, led by distinguished former members of Congress, and its analyses of budget data are sound. I often agree with the organization’s viewpoint.

But it is a viewpoint, and it is hardly the only one. Countless economists, budget analysts and other experts would argue that long-term shortfalls in those two programs can be addressed by controlling health care costs and raising the cap on the Social Security tax, so that higher earners pay a little more.

Others would point out that “entitlements,” which are simply a budget category, have no special status on the chopping block, and cuts to military spending, for example, could achieve the same purpose. And other economists argue that any aggressive move toward deficit reduction would be unwise while the economy is still fragile.

These are no less responsible views.

Imagine a question such as this: “According to the nonpartisan Sierra Club, unless we reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, climate change will be catastrophic. What kind of carbon tax or cap-and-trade plan would you propose to avoid this result?” This is a trick question of sorts, because in five hours of debate, not one question about climate change was asked.

But if it had been, this perfectly reasonable inquiry would have been denounced as leading, accepting the argument of an advocacy group, and presuming the appropriate policy solution, just as Mr. Wallace’s question did with the “grand bargain.”

For several years, this dogma about “entitlements” has held the status of received fact among journalists and pundits. It’s hard to think of another interest-group argument that has had such influence on conventional opinion. And usually politicians have followed along, notably President Obama, who spent much of the middle period of his presidency in search of the “grand bargain” suggested by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Remarkably, though, neither candidate last night played along. Donald Trump blustered that his tax cuts would generate economic growth of “5 or 6 percent.” Hillary Clinton rejected Social Security benefit cuts, arguing that no more than a modest increase in the cap on payroll taxes was needed. And she promised to reduce Medicare spending by going after the “drivers” of health care costs, to “increase value, emphasize wellness.”

The debate moderators have not caught up, but American politics has finally turned away from the suffocating belief that cuts to the two largest programs in the entitlement category of the budget are the only way to ensure long-term economic health. Only one presidential candidate has a realistic alternative, but nonetheless, it’s a breakthrough.

Mark Schmitt is the director of the political reform program at New America.