( CNN ) -- It 's not news that the national debt presents a daunting challenge . The public debt is growing faster than the economy , a trend that can not be sustained . Even more immediately , at years ' end we will face a $ 7 trillion fiscal cliffâ€ ” a series of policies will kick in , from the blunt , across the board spending cuts ( or sequester ) to the expiration of the tax cuts that would reduce spending and raise taxes so abruptly and mindlessly it would put us back into recession . But ignoring and waiving the policies instead would add additional trillions to the debt and set us up for a fiscal crisis . A fiscal cliff or a mountain of debt . It will require presidential leadership to avoid either threat . While the likely approach will be to replace the slated policies with a gradual debt reduction plan that would bring the deficit down and leave the debt so that it is no longer growing faster than the economy , there are many different ways to achieve this -- all with pros and cons -- and many specifics that need to be filled in . However , the tendency during campaigns , of course , is for politicians to talk about what they promise not to do , rather than own up to the tougher decisions their stewardship would require . Instead of allowing the presidential candidates to duck and bob to avoid specifically saying how they would stem the flow of red ink , what if voters insisted that all presidential candidates directly answer the question , `` how would you fix the debt ? '' Quite simply , candidates should not even apply for the job of running the country if they are n't willing to share the details of their approach for fixing the debt . We should devote one of the three presidential debates to the topic of how , specifically , each candidate would change the budget , cut spending , and reform entitlement programs and the tax system to fix the debt . Candidates must debate the debt , not duck it . At the debate , each candidate would present a detailed plan of his preferred approach for reducing the deficit . Any plan should save at least $ 4-6 trillion over the next decade -- the amount most experts have pegged as the minimum needed to stabilize the debt -- or at the very least , a candidate should explain why his plan achieves any less . Both President Barack Obama and Gov . Mitt Romney would have a lot of fleshing out of their plans to do before this debate . Thus far , the president has only offered much smaller plans which are best described as a first step towards dealing with the problem rather than a full-blown plan , while Romney has offered a plan that could get control of the debt but with the bulk of the specifics on the spending cuts and tax breaks he would reduce , left blank , thus leaving none of the critical details filled in . In the debate , the candidates would be led through a discussion of their proposals on defense , domestic spending cuts , reforms to Social Security , Medicare , and other entitlement programs , and taxes , and make the case for their specific proposals . The plans could be scored by outside experts ahead of time so that fuzzy math would n't even enter the discussion . No avoiding the question , no magic asterisks , no talking about the fun parts , like lower tax rates or new investments , without the real work of detailing how they would pay for them . Voters would see beneath the hoods and assess the trade-offs of the different approaches . Certainly , either plan would not be the final word when one of the men becomes president , since it will go though many changes to achieve congressional support . But it would be the start of the conversation . It is unimaginable then that we should be asked to choose a candidate without knowing how they would serve as the country 's fiscal stewards during what experts have called the most predictable and most avoidable , economic crisis in history . And with so many difficult choices to be made quickly after the election , the notion that there will be some kind of mandate for how to proceed if the candidates have n't addressed this issue head on is both highly optimistic and dangerous . The stage afforded by the fall debates is the most viable possibility for compelling the candidates to answer these tough but necessary questions . It 's what they call an adult conversation , and we should give it a try . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Maya MacGuineas .
Maya MacGuineas says public debt growing faster than economy ; this ca n't be sustained . Comment: She says candidates should be compelled in a debate to outline plans on cutting debt . MacGuineas : Voters ca n't be expected to choose without specific , fact-checked proposal .