End the Debt Ceiling

Both useless and misused.

Along with getting Congress to increase the debt ceiling so that the government can pay its bills, at least until December, President Trump also suggested getting rid of the debt ceiling altogether.
It’s an idea that merits very serious consideration.
There are two clauses of the Constitution at work here. The first, Article I, Section 9, says, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” In other words, the Treasury can only spend money that Congress has told it to spend. And the Treasury has no option but to spend it. Presidents used to “impound” funds they didn’t want to spend, but that implied power ended with the Budget Control Act of 1974. (It should be called the Budget Out-of-Control Act, as it caused federal spending to spiral sharply upwards, but that is a story for a different post.)
The second clause, Article I, Section 8, says, “The Congress shall have the Power . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” In other words, Congress, not the Treasury, must decide to borrow money, authorizing the Treasury to do so.
Until 1917, Congress passed legislation to authorize each individual bond offering. But when we entered World War I, it was obvious that borrowing needs would be huge (the debt went from $1.225 billion in 1916 to $25.4 billion in 1919). And so Congress established the debt ceiling in place of authorizing each bond issue.
So what does the debt ceiling accomplish? Not much. If Congress appropriates money in excess of expected revenues, then the Treasury has no choice but to borrow the difference. The alternative is default, which would have catastrophic consequences. If Congress doesn’t want to raise the debt ceiling, its only option is to cut spending. Good luck with that.
For many years, Congress, knowing it had no choice, routinely raised the debt ceiling as needed, with little public notice beyond an occasional tut-tut editorial in conservative newspapers. For a good many years, a debt ceiling increase was attached to every annual budget resolution.
But as the middle emptied out in American politics in recent decades, Congressional authorization of a higher debt ceiling has become a political football, with each side trying to embarrass the other into making concessions. The government (or at least the unessential parts of it) has been shut down several times as the politicians played the sort of cynical politics that enrages most ordinary citizens.
Most countries have no debt ceiling. (Denmark has one, but it’s so much higher than the actual Danish national debt as to be effectively a nullity.) Of course, most countries’ budgets are largely determined by the executive. But in the United States, while the president submits a budget every year, Congress pays little attention to it, often proclaiming it “dead on arrival.”
What would eliminating the debt ceiling do? It would save members of Congress from having to make a vote that displays Congressional fiscal irresponsibility. It would prevent the sort virtue signaling and political brinkmanship that serve no purpose other than the most cynical ones. It might even help force the government into a desperately needed fundamental reform of the budget process, a process that has been slowly, but inexorably, leading the country into a fiscal disaster for more than four decades.
23
Shares
Google+ Print

End the Debt Ceiling

Must-Reads from Magazine

BDS: Sudden Converts to Caution

Backfire.

As I write, we do not know what might go into President Trump’s planned announcement on Jerusalem. But on at least some of our college campuses, protests are already being prepared.

5
Shares
Google+ Print

The Race Is on to Make Mueller Toxic

Keep your powder dry.

Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign has a credibility problem. At least, that’s what we’re being told with ever-increasing agitation by those with an investment in the probe’s conclusions.

14
Shares
Google+ Print

Excommunicating the Abusers

Narrative shaping.

As Jonah Goldberg observed, the ongoing reckoning with abusive men in positions of authority might have begun with the outing of Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes. But it didn’t. The “national conversation” that followed the exposure of their abuses focused more on a perceived culture of aggressive masculinity and institutionalized exploitation in conservative circles. It is telling that it required the confirmation of decades-old “open secrets” involving a prominent movie producer and liberal political activist to get the ball rolling on this moment of national reconciliation.

15
Shares
Google+ Print

Please Help COMMENTARY Enlighten

News moves at the speed of light. Enlightenment doesn't.

I need to ask you a favor. You’re here because you value COMMENTARY. And we’re here because we value our mission, which is to do what we can to enlighten our readers about the immensely confusing days through which we are living. We all need to follow the news as it happens. And we also need enlightenment—to understand what the news is doing to our lives, to our countries, to our civilization. If you can, please help COMMENTARY—a non-profit 501 c 3 organization that relies not only on subscribers but also on donors to keep doing what we’ve been doing.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

It’s Time to Prepare a Military Option on Iran

While there's still time.

North Korea’s demonstration of a ballistic missile capable of reaching most of the United States prompted gloomy commentary in Israel about the failure to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program and, by analogy, the seeming impossibility of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. As Haaretz commentator Anshel Pfeffer put it, Kim Jong-un “proved that a dictator who wants a nuclear weapon badly enough,” and is ruthless and determined enough, “will ultimately achieve it.” Yet the North Korean example proves no such thing because it says nothing about the efficacy of the one tactic America never tried: military action, or at least the credible threat thereof.

42
Shares
Google+ Print