We are in the middle of a debate over raising the debt ceiling. At the end of the day, we will have to raise the debt ceiling. But this will happen as the result of a negotiation between the Republican controlled House of Representatives, Democratic President Joe Biden, and a democratically controlled Senate. There’s plenty of room to consider reform of the debt ceiling process in the future. But in the near term, this is no time for constitutionally dubious tactics, or other ways of trying to get around the core principle that ultimately Congress has to authorize debt issued by the government. I will consider four points. One, why we must raise the debt ceiling to why we have the debt ceiling limit in the first place and Congress’s constitutional role in raising debt. Three, why this is not the time for on the fly reform to the process, or even worse, employing novel and dubious constitutional and arounds and for why What is needed is a negotiated settlement. First, Congress must raise the debt ceiling sometime this summer, as early as June, the government will reach a point where it cannot pay its obligations. Congress has previously authorized that the United States may have a debt of up to $31.4 billion. But based on previously enacted spending appropriations, and previously enacted tax laws, the government will need to incur more debt to pay its obligations. The consequences for not raising the debt ceiling are enormous. Government might not be able to pay for interest for bondholders, Social Security checks, salaries of government employees or for other important immediate needs. But the larger consequences are even scarier. Not paying our obligations, or even cutting it too close to the time when core obligations are due, could lead to a dramatic loss of confidence. It could lead to the downgrading of our debt, disruption of financial markets, and deep and sudden recession not just in the United States. But throughout the world. The United States is generally seen as a place that pays its bills. And undermining confidence in the US ability to pay is a disastrous experiment that no one wants to see play up. Second, why do we have a debt ceiling limit at all? At the heart of the matter is Congress’s constitutional power to spend, tax and borrow money. Article One section eight of the Constitution lays out these powers and specifically notes that Congress shall have the power to, quote, borrow money on the credit of the United States. Over the years Congress has exercise this power in different ways. In earlier times, Congress issued much more specific direction to the federal government to float individual bonds or loans for specific purposes. The current debt ceiling limit system goes back a century and the intent of the system was to allow Congress to authorize debt in a simpler way on a larger scale, rather than requiring many requests for issuing debt. Third, we should not see quick reforms or end arounds the debt ceiling there are legitimate criticisms to our current debt ceiling process, and serious discussions about long term reform would be welcome. But now, on the edge of a potential crisis is not the time to lament the process or expect fundamental reforms. There is too much negotiation over the near term solution that we should take up those discussions for long term reform after this crisis has been averted. Even more troubling are suggestions that the President might get around the debt ceiling using constitutionally novel solutions. Under multiple proposed theories, the President would simply ignore the debt ceiling and issued debt above the limit to pay for our obligations. These solutions would be damaging themselves. Resolution of the constitutional issues might not happen quickly. The doubts raised by these actions might themselves cause a lack of confidence. And ultimately, they would get away from the core constitutional provision that Congress must authorize borrowing of money on the credit of the United States. Fourth, what is needed is negotiation. President Biden and Democrats began with the position that they would agree to a debt ceiling increase but with no other conditions. The Republican House of Representatives has now passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling, along with spending restraints and policy changes. At the end of the day, Congress will not adopt Democrats proposal of a clean debt ceiling bill or the Republican House Bill. It will be somewhere in the middle. This negotiation is fraught and needs to happen quickly, but there is no other way
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘A promise’: Cadets describe their journeys at West Point
Jan 10 Dr. Frank Luntz‘A disturbing pick’: Americans debate Musk, Trump’s cabinet picks
Jan 3 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Dysfunctional’: Americans share criticisms of Congress
Dec 27 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Instill optimism’: Americans on how future generations can succeed
Dec 20 Dr. Frank LuntzDebt ceiling standoff between Biden and GOP must end quickly
By Straight Arrow News
On Tuesday, May 16, President Biden met with top Republican and Democratic leaders to deliberate on raising the debt ceiling, underscoring lawmakers’ focus on avoiding default. Though Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) rarely see eye to eye, sources say they understand that a deal must be hammered out.
Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier asserts that while the negotiations are challenging, a prompt settlement between the two parties is paramount.
We are in the middle of a debate over raising the debt ceiling. At the end of the day, we will have to raise the debt ceiling but this will happen as the result of a negotiation between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Democratic President Joe Biden, and a Democratically-controlled Senate.
There’s plenty of room to consider reform of the debt ceiling process in the future but in the near term, this is no time for constitutionally-dubious tactics, or other ways of trying to get around the core principle that ultimately Congress has to authorize debt issued by the government.
I will consider four points:
1) Why we must raise the debt ceiling.
2) Why we have the debt ceiling limit in the first place and Congress’s constitutional role in raising debt.
3) Why this is not the time for on-the-fly reform to the process, or even worse, employing novel and dubious constitutional end-arounds.
4) Why what is needed is a negotiated settlement.
We are in the middle of a debate over raising the debt ceiling. At the end of the day, we will have to raise the debt ceiling. But this will happen as the result of a negotiation between the Republican controlled House of Representatives, Democratic President Joe Biden, and a democratically controlled Senate. There’s plenty of room to consider reform of the debt ceiling process in the future. But in the near term, this is no time for constitutionally dubious tactics, or other ways of trying to get around the core principle that ultimately Congress has to authorize debt issued by the government. I will consider four points. One, why we must raise the debt ceiling to why we have the debt ceiling limit in the first place and Congress’s constitutional role in raising debt. Three, why this is not the time for on the fly reform to the process, or even worse, employing novel and dubious constitutional and arounds and for why What is needed is a negotiated settlement. First, Congress must raise the debt ceiling sometime this summer, as early as June, the government will reach a point where it cannot pay its obligations. Congress has previously authorized that the United States may have a debt of up to $31.4 billion. But based on previously enacted spending appropriations, and previously enacted tax laws, the government will need to incur more debt to pay its obligations. The consequences for not raising the debt ceiling are enormous. Government might not be able to pay for interest for bondholders, Social Security checks, salaries of government employees or for other important immediate needs. But the larger consequences are even scarier. Not paying our obligations, or even cutting it too close to the time when core obligations are due, could lead to a dramatic loss of confidence. It could lead to the downgrading of our debt, disruption of financial markets, and deep and sudden recession not just in the United States. But throughout the world. The United States is generally seen as a place that pays its bills. And undermining confidence in the US ability to pay is a disastrous experiment that no one wants to see play up. Second, why do we have a debt ceiling limit at all? At the heart of the matter is Congress’s constitutional power to spend, tax and borrow money. Article One section eight of the Constitution lays out these powers and specifically notes that Congress shall have the power to, quote, borrow money on the credit of the United States. Over the years Congress has exercise this power in different ways. In earlier times, Congress issued much more specific direction to the federal government to float individual bonds or loans for specific purposes. The current debt ceiling limit system goes back a century and the intent of the system was to allow Congress to authorize debt in a simpler way on a larger scale, rather than requiring many requests for issuing debt. Third, we should not see quick reforms or end arounds the debt ceiling there are legitimate criticisms to our current debt ceiling process, and serious discussions about long term reform would be welcome. But now, on the edge of a potential crisis is not the time to lament the process or expect fundamental reforms. There is too much negotiation over the near term solution that we should take up those discussions for long term reform after this crisis has been averted. Even more troubling are suggestions that the President might get around the debt ceiling using constitutionally novel solutions. Under multiple proposed theories, the President would simply ignore the debt ceiling and issued debt above the limit to pay for our obligations. These solutions would be damaging themselves. Resolution of the constitutional issues might not happen quickly. The doubts raised by these actions might themselves cause a lack of confidence. And ultimately, they would get away from the core constitutional provision that Congress must authorize borrowing of money on the credit of the United States. Fourth, what is needed is negotiation. President Biden and Democrats began with the position that they would agree to a debt ceiling increase but with no other conditions. The Republican House of Representatives has now passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling, along with spending restraints and policy changes. At the end of the day, Congress will not adopt Democrats proposal of a clean debt ceiling bill or the Republican House Bill. It will be somewhere in the middle. This negotiation is fraught and needs to happen quickly, but there is no other way
Musk-Ramaswamy DOGE initiative overdue and full of challenges
This is the dawn of a new national Republican coalition
Why are transitions of power so complicated in the United States?
The 25th Amendment should remain above politics
Uncensored political content like Trump-Musk on X is a win for free speech
Underreported stories from each side
Hunter Biden artworks worth ‘millions of dollars’ destroyed in LA fires: NY Post
13 sources | 0% from the left ReutersCanadian industry groups call for help facing US tariffs
60 sources | 15% from the right Mert Alper Dervis/Anadolu Agency via Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Grand Central Station transformed as ‘Severance’ cast promotes season 2
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket lifts off on first space flight
Netanyahu delays meeting over ceasefire, claims 'last-minute crisis'
Biden warns of ‘oligarchy,’ ‘tech-industrial complex’ in farewell speech
Many Americans don't know they're using AI: Poll
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
We need one big budget reconciliation bill, not two
Wednesday Newt GingrichRFK Jr. at Health Department a chance to tackle drug addiction crisis
Wednesday Adrienne LawrenceIs Meta’s free speech overhaul a power play or real change?
Jan 14 Ben WeingartenAmerica is deeply divided. Here’s what you can do.
Jan 14 Ruben Navarrette