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

A Bias in Favor of Bias

Selectivity in the social sciences.

Last year, I criticized universities for hurrying to implement programs to combat microaggressions, “mostly subtle, mostly inadvertent slights directed at racial minorities and other ‘marginalized” groups.’” According to a review of the research conducted by Scott Lilienfeld, professor of psychology at Emory University, there was little, if any, evidence that such programs do more good than harm. Universities, which should pride themselves on following the evidence wherever it leads, seemed to have succumbed to the pressure to “do something” about racism.

5
Shares
Google+ Print

The Party of Trump, If You Can Keep It

Will the reverence Trump inspires outlast his presidency?

Approximately once every quarter for the last two years, we’ve been bombarded by declarations that Donald Trump’s takeover of the GOP is complete. The frequency with which the verdict is rendered would suggest the thesis is flawed.

11
Shares
Google+ Print

Fossil Fools

Fanaticism.

Over the weekend, the Democratic National Committee voted in favor of refusing all future donations from fossil-fuel companies. They’re so proud of the decision that it was only publicized on Tuesday, and then only by reporters who had to do some digging to learn the news.

23
Shares
Google+ Print

Canada Comes to Its Senses on Iran

Iran's isolation won't be reversed.

I have never been mistaken for a fan of Justin Trudeau, nor will I ever be so mistaken. On the whole, I agree with Ben Shapiro’s assessment of the Canadian prime minister (“Justin Trudeau is what would happen if the song ‘Imagine’ took human form…”). Trudeau’s commitment to full-spectrum progressivism, combined with his vanity and moral preening, make him one of the least serious figures ever to lead a major Western power. Even so, I found myself cheering Trudeau’s Liberal government on Wednesday after it backed a resolution in the House of Commons to “immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions” with the Iranian regime.

36
Shares
Google+ Print

PODCAST: Un Singular Sensation

Podcast: How bad was it?

Was the Singapore Summit nothing, or bad, or the worst thing ever? This is the question we debate. We also examine the meaning of the primary defeat of Republican anti-Trumper Mark Sanford and what this portends for the GOP. Give a listen.

2
Shares
Google+ Print