The alternative to the McConnell plan isn't promising, the author writes. | REUTERS McConnell plan makes choices public

The overarching desire in Washington these days is for a “grand bargain” to address the debt ceiling and deficit. With this grand bargain, both Republicans and Democrats would end their bickering and find a way to agree on a series of proposals to slash inconceivable sums from the federal budget.

But this scenario, though pursued aggressively by the Obama administration, actually pushes voters out of any meaningful role in our political system. If neither party stands for anything except a bipartisan collusion on an agenda designed to appeal to international investors, then voters can’t make a meaningful choice in 2012.


But the concerns of voters must have a role in the national debate. Now, thanks to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s intriguing proposal, endorsed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Grover Norquist and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), they might get one.

McConnell (R-Ky.) has proposed granting President Barack Obama the right to raise the debt ceiling three times by 2012 — on condition that he map out a plan to cut spending by the amount of the debt ceiling hike.

Congress might refuse to allow the debt ceiling hike, but the president would veto such a refusal, and it is very unlikely that veto could be overridden.

In effect, McConnell has offered Obama a clean debt ceiling increase on condition that he lay out a clear governing agenda to be ratified or rejected by the voters in 2012. The plan isn’t perfect — one important change would be to allow for tax changes as well as spending in the president’s recommendations. A lot of spending is disguised through the tax code. But even more important, Obama should be allowed to lay out his agenda — which presumably includes revenue increases — so the public can debate it.

This is a crucial opportunity for each party to make its case why it deserves to win the majority and enact its agenda. The resulting public debate would challenge each party in a way that can only enrich our democracy.

The Republicans have already proposed a deep and radical rearrangement of our governing structures in the form of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. His plan would change what is, effectively, a single-payer Medicare structure into a privatized system like the health insurance used by those younger than 65.

Is this what the Republicans would enact if given full federal governing power in 2012? That is unclear. House Republicans voted yes. But five Republicans in the Senate broke ranks. If the McConnell plan were to pass, GOP primary voters would very likely have the opportunity to sort out this debate among their elected leaders.

Similarly, Obama has constantly dangled cuts to entitlements as a cherished goal. In January2009, presidential economic adviser Larry Summers told Time magazine about the administration’s goals of changing Social Security and Medicare. Obama himself recently proposed raising the Medicare age to 67 and cutting Social Security benefits by changing the way inflation is measured.

Democrats in Congress reacted angrily to his proposal. More than 200,000 activists signed a petition organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, threatening to withhold support for Obama’s reelection because of these entitlement cuts. This was a first step in what could turn into a primary challenge — should Obama’s approval ratings tumble in the fall.

The McConnell proposal could allow more participation and debate within the Democratic Party over government’s appropriate role in American society.

We desperately need a vigorous debate within both parties, as well as between them. Perhaps the Republicans can lay out a clear agenda for a society without government — where you are truly on your own, sink or swim. Perhaps Democrats can make the argument for a strong social safety net, an equity society and higher taxes on the wealthy.

Without such a debate, our political atmosphere will turn even more poisonous — as we’ve seen when the public is denied a role in public policymaking.

This was what happened after candidates John McCain and Obama, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden unanimously endorsed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008. The bank bailout was presented as the only viable option to address the nation’s economic collapse.

But an alternative to a blank check written to banks could have been a global debt restructuring — akin to what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933 when he imposed a bank holiday and began to address the power of the financial sector.

In 2008, however, no political leaders proposed such an alternative solution, except for a few progressives who sought a cramdown — a mild version in the form of bankruptcy reform to allow write-downs on home mortgages by homeowners who had gone broke.

So TARP hatred contributed to the public’s corrosive lack of faith in the political system, record “wrong track” numbers in the polls and stunningly low approval ratings for nearly all governing institutions.

In 2006, 2008 and 2010, voters rejected the incumbent parties in large part because their concerns remained unaddressed and they lacked true democratic choice in politics. Without a change in direction, this pattern seems set to continue.

The alternative to the McConnell plan on the debt ceiling — the grand bargain Obama is talking about — isn’t promising, because it continues the corrosive pattern set by TARP, with closed-door decisions unaffected by popular sentiment.

Should both parties collude in cutting the pension or medical programs that people have paid into their entire lives — and do so without a public debate — the legitimacy of the government itself would be in question.

What kind of message does it send to the American public if the Washington political elites in both parties decide to collaborate on slashing popular entitlement programs without a debate? And what kind of message does it send if the public doesn’t get a chance to see specific governing plans before voting?

It says that voters have no voice, that both parties are more concerned about the desires of the international investors who hold U.S. debt.

On the other hand, a robust discussion in 2012 — with this debt ceiling debate in the background — broadens the public debate. Political leaders and citizens can talk about entitlement cuts, closing corporate tax loopholes, cutting defense spending and shrinking or expanding government and the social safety net.

Voters can debate these issues with their candidates and with each other. It’s exactly what democracy is supposed to be. Perhaps the sentiment that we need entitlement cuts to save the country’s credit will carry the day. Or perhaps voters will debate a different course of action.

And then, with the 2012 presidential election, the winner of this national debate can pass his or her agenda.



Matt Stoller worked on the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and Federal Reserve transparency issues as a staffer for Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). He is currently a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.