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.
Google+ Print

End the Debt Ceiling

Must-Reads from Magazine

Can Trump Have a Bad Week Anymore?

They're with him.

Donald Trump traveled to Florida on Friday at the end of a nightmarish week for the nation. The shooting deaths of 17 people, many of them teenagers, has sent the nation reeling into an increasingly routinized cycle of grievance and recrimination. The familiar debate over what federal response, if any, could have prevented this atrocity or interdict future episodes of mass violence has, however, largely bypassed the president. Trump tweeted condolences, and he briefly addressed the nation, but his presence in the post-Parkland shooting national debate was almost apparitional. The response to this event has largely focused on the Republican majority in Congress. That is instructive; after a year of near ubiquity, Donald Trump might be relinquishing the hold he has had on the national imagination.

Google+ Print

So Now We’re Killing Russians

The stuff of nightmares.

Americans no longer have the luxury of throwing up their hands in frustration over the confused situation on the ground in Syria. As the Wall Street Journal’s Yaroslav Trofimov demonstrated, unpacking the bewildering complexity of the conditions that prevail on the ground now that the ISIS threat has receded leaves observers with the terrifying realization that great power conflict is not so difficult to imagine.

Google+ Print

Responding to Parkland: Amend the Second Amendment?

Podcast: How to respond to mass murder.

For those who want radical changes in the way the United States handles guns and shooters, what else can be done but amending the Constitution to supplant the Second Amendment? That’s the question I ask Noah Rothman and Abe Greenwald on this edition of the COMMENTARY Magazine podcast, which also addresses rising Republican fortunes in national polling. Give a listen.

Google+ Print

The Courage to Confront Campus Radicalism

Fear for the future.

When conservatives and conscience-addled liberals fret about the rising influence of censorious students on college campuses, the overwhelming response they get from skeptics is “who cares?” Those who do not outright defend creeping radicalism on campus are prone to minimize the threat of violence and fanaticism. While obtuse, this approach does have some immediate political utility. Dismissing events on campus as the antics of a few misguided kids casts those who care about such affairs as obsessive cranks who fixate on matters of no objective consequences. It goes without saying that not everyone is sincere who wonders aloud about the relevance of maximalist rhetoric, racial intolerance, and even violence on campus, but some are. They deserve an answer. Why should we care about rigidly enforced intellectual cloistering on campuses?

Google+ Print

Now, More than Ever, Holocaust Memory Matters

Memory and Judaism are inseparable.

Yes. That’s the answer to a question posed by the headline of Shmuel Rosner’s latest piece in the New York Times. Yes: Israeli students need to visit Auschwitz. All Jewish students should. Plenty of non-Jews, too.

Google+ Print