The "Debt Ceiling" should be considered unconstitutional and any member of Congress threatening to default on our debt should be considered in open rebellion to the United States of America.
The 14th Amendment makes it clear that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.". Having a so-called Debt Ceiling is clearly a violation of the constitution.
Congress has already authorized said spending. Ergo the debt ceiling is simply a tool of rebellion used by some member of Congress.
This behavior should not be tolerated.
@rmaloley You have it backwards, though: the Constitution *requires* the debt ceiling.
The Constitution grants to Congress authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" and that's for a very good reason: if the country is going to obligate itself to debt, that could involve generations of citizens having to work to pay it off. Therefore, the representatives need to affirm that we're really all into it.
What we refer to as the #debtceiling is simply the amount that our representatives have so far agreed to obligate the country to.
As for authorizing said spending, remember that authorizing something doesn't mean it's possible. It's only a permission. Huge difference.
The Treasury brings in enough to pay US debts. There is no legal risk of default.
There is only a case where past Congresses authorized the spending of money that doesn't actually exist.
@volkris An interesting perspective that I disagree with. As Congress already budgeted the outlays, and as we incur debts and maintain a deficit, the "debt ceiling" is simply a fictitious way to describe our terrible fiscal policy.
Since Congress can't spend money itself--the Treasury lives in the executive branch--its budgeting is effectively the ficticious thing here.
Congress only authorizes spending of money that may or may not exist.
It's up to the Treasury to come up with and implement the real budget based on what Congress has authorized it to spend out of what it actually has.
Congress's budgeting, such that it is, is largely aspirational. The executive branch has to actually deal with budgeting based on real world realities.
@volkris @rmaloley The consequences of failing to raise the #debtceiling would be catastrophic for the world economy.
I'd say it would cause major disturbance should the president decide not to pay debts--and since the Treasury has enough income to pay debts that's his choice to make, Constitution aside--but the spending cap required by the debtceiling isn't nearly as catastrophic as politicians have been spinning.
It's merely the equivalent of Congress not having authorized quite as large an omnibus package in the last session.
It was a bad idea for Congress to have authorized spending of money that everyone knew didn't exist, but here we are.
The US can spend based on the previous baselines of spending, and the world will not end, and hopefully we'll hold accountable those congresspeople who voted for such foolishness.
Or, more likely, we'll reelect them.
@volkris @kathrynlaskey I appreciate your perspective volkris yet I disagree. The power of the purse lies with Congress. Congress sets the budget that the Executive can spend and is able to limit what the Executive can spend monies on. For example when Trump wanted to take funding from one spot and use it for The Wall.
I agree that this is a broken process and Congress should do better.
I think the plain reading of the Constitution bolsters the case that the Debt Ceiling simply does not exist. If Congress passes a larger budget then that is simply the budget. Otherwise how can we have debt and deficits?
I appreciate the civil conversation everyone.
"Congress sets the budget that the Executive can spend"
Yes, and this is the key.
Congress sets what the Executive **can** spend. Exactly. But it's still up to the Executive to do the actual spending, subject to availability of funding.
We have debt and deficits because through a different process, that Congress chooses to keep separate, Congress can authorize the Executive to borrow money.
So the budget is what Congress says the Executive *can* spend, and the debt ceiling is what Congress says the Executive *can* borrow.
Two separate things, but they're analogous.
@volkris @kathrynlaskey I see your perspective I just disagree in it being constitutional. Congress can say that there is a debt ceiling but the reality is that they budgeted a deficit so the Executive will spend that money. I haven't seen anything else to detract from that thought process.
To put it a different way, it's not Congress saying that there is a debt ceiling but rather the Constitution creating a debt ceiling that Congress is to manage.
Since the Constitution specifically says Congress is the one with the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States", then the total that they've borrowed IS the debt ceiling.
And again, Congress authorizes spending. That's disconnected from the actual spending that the Executive does, which is why the amount spent never matches the amount Congress has budgeted.
And sure, I'm aware that others say different things about what the Constitution says, but I would counter this particular "implicit permission to borrow" argument with the practical observation that Congress has a separate process for borrowing.
It would seem to me that the long history of congressional debate and action on explicit permission to borrow shows that it handles that question explicitly, not implicitly.
That Congress routinely expends effort to debate and answer the question shows that it doesn't intend the issue to be answered through assumption.
@volkris @rmaloley
Many disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. See, e.g.:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/glj-online/103-online/unconstitutional-debt-ceilings/