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
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/
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.
