As I understand it, the prevailing opinion is that fighting the raises to the debt ceiling is irresponsible, and that it is partisan governance to try to shut down government or risk default to prevent the debt ceiling from going up further.
However, are there circumstances where fighting such a raise is appropriate? I can think of two at the moment:
A straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back situation where the national debt has reached such a massive high that a line simply must be drawn;
A scenario where a President wants a lot of deficit spending for a bad cause - for instance, to borrow $1 trillion for an unpopular war in the Middle East.
Any others?
Because we’re nuts. The excuse is that Congress has the authority to borrow money. I believe that when Congress sets the spending and the revenue, it implicitly authorizes the ensuing debt. Instead, we have Congress setting the spending and the revenue, but they get to blame the president for wasting the public treasury when it’s time to authorize additional borrowing.
It’s possible for the U.S. Government to raise money without taxing, borrowing or minting the trillion-dollar platinum coin. Space on the Statue of Liberty’s arm could be rented out for advertising. An aircraft carrier should easily fetch $10 billion or more at auction, if its complement of aircraft is included. We could sell the Pentagon to the Saudis and rent it back.
If Cruz and the other saboteurs don’t relent after a month or two, Yellowstone Park could be sold, or even the Interstate Highway System. Puerto Rico isn’t an essential part of the U.S.; I wonder what it would fetch at auction?
If there were practical and realistic ways to raise the money otherwise that would be a legitimate objection. I haven’t heard the opponents offer any such alternatives though. I think it’s just a negotiating tactic, the appropriateness of which depends on the results.
Voting against an increase to the debt limit as a protest against bad spending or revenue policies isn’t a terrible thing, IMHO, if it is honestly portrayed as a protest vote. Like, say, voting for a noncompetitive candidate in an congressional election where one incumbent is going to win with a huge percentage of the vote, and the dissenting vote is cast as a statement against a pointless election.
Where is crosses the line is when a protest actually results in the house being burned down or the hostage being shot. If someone votes against a debt limit increase, and the result is that the U.S. defaults on the debt, that is inexcusable under any scenario. Sort of like if someone casts a protest vote in an election that leads to the worst possible candidate being elected.
Let me pile on. First learn what the debt ceiling is before you make ridiculous statements about it.
There are no legitimate reasons for fighting the debt ceiling. There are no legitimate reasons for having a debt ceiling, either, but we have one and as long as that is true it merely authorizes payment of debts Congress has already voted into existence.
There are already provisions to pay off debt without borrowing, called extraordinary measures. In practice, none of these amount to the sums needed. And neither would those given by septimus.
The problem with those threats is that there is nothing the Republicanswould like more than to sell off as many publicly held assets as possible to their big business buddies. The cheaper the better.
The point is that by passing a law that required Congress to raise the debt ceiling the congressmen of the time could tell their constituents that they were being firm against the debt, while passing the buck to future Congresses who would have to deal with it.
Yellowstone Park might not fetch as much as even a single aircraft carrier, unless the Park were sold to a foreign power. And what would the Chinese pay for an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” like Guam or Midway?
But my suggestion is not a serious proposal for reducing debt, but just the opposite: If the President were to announce that he had to auction off an aircraft carrier because Congress wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling, might that cause the Cruzites to feel shame?
Prior to the debt ceiling bill being enacted the act of appropriating money for federal spending caused the issuance of debt if there wasn’t money in the bank to pay for it. So deficit spending was automatically covered when congress spent more than it brought in.
I interpreted Jonathon Chance’s comment differently.
The need for a raise in the debt ceiling is due to the net effect of all of the Congressional actions regarding raising revenue and appropriations. When the Congress appropriates more money and doesn’t pass a law to raise more revenue, you could argue that they implicitly raised the debt ceiling.