No democratic politicians dare talk about the one true solution - reducing global human population.
For a very simple reason - they can't seriously suggest that. They can wave their hands at it, but you won't see a seasoned career politician do anything meaningful about population reduction.
Why? Because first world entitlement programs rely on an ever-increasing population to sustain what is effectively a Ponzi scheme. That is not a political comment nor a judgement on whether they are good or bad, just a factual recognition that such a system "pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors" (Wikipedia).
If the lower age workers (the "more recent investors") were to dwindle in quantity then there are only two options to sustain the system: Reduce payouts, or increase income. Payouts go to "earlier investors", who are older and very reliable voters whom politicians must placate so their payouts aren't going to decrease in any meaningful way. That leaves increasing the income - but politicians can only raise worker taxes so far before
workers rebel and vote them out of office.
Hence politicians are trapped by the very systems they created. Population MUST continuously increase or the systems will collapse of their own weight.
If the existing population does not produce the necessary increase, one way to address that is immigration. This reveals why politicians will also hand-wave at "immigration control" but never quite get around to "fixing" it. Immigration, like increasing population, serves the political interests of elected officials.
As I say about technical topics: Pay attention to the deliverables. All else is noise and distraction. Is the population problem truly being addressed? Is the immigration problem truly being addressed? The answers to those questions are not accidents, no matter what the rhetoric claims. This is not the first time in history that politicians say one thing while doing another.