Outside the Beltway

Outside the Beltway

Trump is Right: The Debt Ceiling Should Go

A rare area of agreement.

Steven L. Taylor
28

In the middle of the current kerfuffle over keeping the government open is the surprising (to me, anyway) demand from Trump to take the debt ceiling issue off the table for at least two years, maybe five, or perhaps forever. Recognizing that part of what he is doing is trying to take away a tool that could theoretically be used as leverage by Democrats during his administration, I agree that it should go.

See, CNN: Trump would abolish the debt ceiling. Here’s what’s going on.

I have written extensively on this topic before, so I won’t rehash all that now save to note that if the spending and financing of the spending has already been legislatively authorized by Congress, the entire notion of the debt ceiling is moot. Moreover, we have to get to the point wherein we stop all of this government shutdown nonsense and while getting rid of the debt ceiling doesn’t stop that business altogether, it would take one of the triggers off the table.

It is worth noting that there is profound opposition to its removal in the right-flank of the GOP.

Previous posts on this subject:

,
, ,

28 responses to “Trump is Right: The Debt Ceiling Should Go”

  1. Joe Avatar
    Joe

    Taking it away forever (understanding later legislative action could reinstate it) is perfectly defensible and maybe preferable per your prior arguments. Taking it away just for Trump is bulls–t.

    11
  2. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    While I agree the debt ceiling should go, Trump’s proposal is a complete farce. The proposal is that the debt ceiling goes only during the time he is guaranteed the Republican’s have both chambers of Congress. This is just a “Democrats unilaterally disarm and then pick up the weapon and hand it to the Republican’s the moment they get leverage back”. It’s a crock.

    24
  3. Stormy Dragon Avatar
    Stormy Dragon

    @MarkedMan:

    There’s also the “have your cake and eat it too” aspect of wanting it now so they can blame Biden for it in future campaigns

    4
  4. Stormy Dragon Avatar
    Stormy Dragon

    Mirroring from the House Freedom Caucus strategy, the DNC should demand any increase to the debt ceiling be matched by tax increases on people making more than $400,000 per year.

    11
  5. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @Stormy Dragon: That’s a good idea. Either way, I’ll open the predictions with the debt doubling over the next four years. (It’s a good thing that deficits don’t matter.)

    2
  6. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    Steven, I was thinking about writing a similar post this morning. Eliminating the debt ceiling makes total sense and would be the right thing to do for the country.

    And, rereading some of those comments from your debt ceiling links, this is a case where it will require the Republican party to go against it’s typical position that the Debt Ceiling should never be raised, let alone eliminated. In that respect, this is something that Trump might be able to pull off. That said, I expect the best we’ll get is a kick-the-can-down-the-way solution.

    Of course, for the both-siders out there, the Democrats probably will suddenly discover a love for the Debt Ceiling that they historically have never had.

    3
  7. Scott F. Avatar
    Scott F.

    Moreover, we have to get to the point wherein we stop all of this government shutdown nonsense…

    That’s the key. But, with the Republicans working in the Unreality space (whereby trillions can be removed from government spending without touching entitlements or the military segment of discretionary spending), threats of a government shutdown are all the GOP has to demonstrate their small government shtick.

    3
  8. al Ameda Avatar
    al Ameda

    Well then, following the January 20th Inauguration, House and Senate Republicans should unanimously vote for eliminating (((more like temporarily suspending))) the Debt Ceiling.

    Republicans do have the courage to go on the record as supporting that ….. right?

    7
  9. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    @Matt Bernius: Matt, Repubs have already telegraphed their play here: there is no debt limit for Republican Presidents and Republican congressional control, but it will come back the minute they loose a chamber or the presidency.

    I think the only real way to eliminate the debt ceiling is for the Supreme Court to rule that Congress authorizing spending inherently authorizes the funding, including funding by issuing debt.

    4
  10. Chip Daniels Avatar
    Chip Daniels

    We should demand to know what’s in it for us.

    Will they agree to reinstate the children’s cancer funding, for instance? We can’t do it “on principle” because as others point out, this is giving them a hamburger today in exchange for payment on Tuesday.

    They need to make immediate and irrevocable concessions before we lift a finger.

    6
  11. Jay L Gischer Avatar
    Jay L Gischer

    Yeah, there’s a lot of games that could be played, or maybe are being played.

    AND, I think that a full repeal of the debt ceiling is something that I support, and would urge other Democrats to support. Regardless of who is president. Because I think it is good for the country to do so.

    A full repeal could not be reinstated without control of all three branches. Which is precisely the moment when they won’t want to reinstate it. So I think a full repeal would stick.

    1
  12. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    @Jay L Gischer:

    A full repeal could not be reinstated without control of all three branches.

    Interesting if correct, but I don’t know if it is. Control of both the House and Senate might be sufficient. Could the Congress bung up the works without subjecting the “bunging up” to a presidential veto? It’s not clear to me whether or not they can shut down the government without requiring a vote subject to veto. During the budget process, they certainly can, by simply not passing a budget. The debt ceiling limit is essentially a cowardly way to attempt a second budgeting process, to have their cake and eat it too. In the regular budget they have to go on record as to what they support or reject, but in the debt ceiling one they don’t have to name any specific program they are for or against. So they can vote for all kinds of tax cuts and benefits, but then refuse to authorize the borrowing when those expenditures require it. Since most voters are unaware of pretty much everything, they can tell them a) I voted to give you things and got it passed and b) I voted against runaway government spending.

    I like what you said, but would really like to hear from people conversant in Congressional shenanigans about the effectiveness.

    In any case, permanent debt ceiling elimination isn’t on the table, only debt ceiling elimination for Republicans.

    2
  13. DK Avatar
    DK

    @Matt Bernius:

    for the both-siders out there, the Democrats probably will suddenly discover a love for the Debt Ceiling that they historically have never had.

    Dems have never claimed to support temporarily eliminating the debt ceiling just for Republican presidents/congresses only. So the bothsidesers would still be off-base, per usual.

    If African oligarch Musk and vice-president-elect Trump seek to permanently and fully ax the debt ceiling, they would find Democrats amenable and open to negotiation. But MAGA Republicans don’t want that, or any compromise that might involve negotiating with Democrats. So.

    5
  14. Lucysfootball Avatar
    Lucysfootball

    @just nutha: The debt is more than $36 trillion right now, with deficits running a little over $2 trillion. No way the debt comes close to doubling, I could see Trump adding $10 trillion.

    1
  15. clarkontheweekend Avatar
    clarkontheweekend

    I’m really tired of seeing these “45 is right about this one thing” formulations. I’ve seen with daylight savings recently as well. As if these two topics haven’t already been hashed over ad nauseam but then 45 says it, and people are like Wow! what a concentrazione, what an idea, never heard that before! Giving that shitbag credit for anything he says is dumb on its face.

    7
  16. Jay L Gischer Avatar
    Jay L Gischer

    @clarkontheweekend: Well, let me expose my broader context.

    One way to think about Trump, which I have heard from indigenous people is that he is a Trickster. As such, he will cause harm, and create chaos. He will break things. In the process, he will break things that need to be broken, and which cannot be broken any other way.

    I think the debt ceiling is one of these things.

    I did not wish for this. I worked against it. And yet here it is. During Trump’s last term, he installed a mortgage deduction cap. I think this is a good thing. I didn’t like how he spent the money, but that’s much more easily changed.

    He’s so chaotic, he will do things sometimes that are good things by my lights, and which no responsible adult person could pull off. I say we use the situation to do the best we can.

    2
  17. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    @Jay L Gischer:

    he will break things that need to be broken, and which cannot be broken any other way

    This inevitably implies intention that does not exist. My formulation (contemplated during a rugby scrum of a walk down Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras): If a drunk climbs a lamp pole and pisses down on the crowd below, he might piss on someone that deserves it, but you shouldn’t give credit to the drunk for that.

    10
  18. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @Lucysfootball: We’ll see, and you’re probably right. Still, deficits usually run 200% of Democrat deficits during Republican administrations, and Trump deficits were higher than tradition. I think he can get to 15-20 trillion without breaking a sweat.

    Remember, deficits don’t matter now and Elon and Vivek are due for a “who knew balancing the budget would be so complicated” announcement early next year.

    3
  19. Sleeping Dog Avatar
    Sleeping Dog

    @Lucysfootball:

    During the campaign, estimates of what trump’s proposals would do to the deficit ranged from $4T at the low end and $16T at the high end. So he wouldn’t double it, but possibly could increase it by 45%.

    1
  20. Liberal Capitalist Avatar
    Liberal Capitalist

    @Lucysfootball:

    … I could see Trump adding $10 trillion.

    That would be just what he added the last time in 4 years.
    To paraphrase Al Pacino: That’s just Trump getting started!

    The debt limit has to stay. Taking it away for Trump’s “benefit” is like giving the thieving Beagle Boys the keys to Scrooge McDuck’s money bin. You just KNOW trump would not limit himself either.
    Consider:

    Now, he has to build a wall this time around. That is a whole lot of land that the government will need to buy, and compensate the ranchers that will lose their cattle grazing rights.
    Plus the fences that will need to be taller and deeper than any ladder that can be built or tunnel dug.
    And then there will be all the bail-outs required because of the tariffs, the more massive billionaire tax cuts this time than last time — because who will stop him? He has both houses of congress!
    Let’s not to forget special Oligarch bonus carve-outs for all those that kicked in $250+ Million toward his campaign PACs. They are looking for more substantial return on investment and not just the ambassador position of fill-in-the-blank.
    Then there is the immigrant expulsions, the costs of housing, transportation, feeding and relocation of millions. The government incurred legal costs boggle the mind! And the millions of troops required to do this. Have to pay for their special salaries to do that work… and the government bureaucracy that will have to be created to manage all of that. (can’t just shove them immigrants on trains and send ’em to camps without plausible deniability). Businesses will demand government compensation to pay for all those people lost at lower wages and the higher wages that will need to be paid to attract American workers. Housing costs will rise because new construction will have stopped, inflation will return far higher than the 2.4% now.
    Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… MASS HYSTERIA! (oh wait, that was Ghostbusters. Ignore that last sentence)
    Tump promised to lower grocery costs. At a visit in Pennsyvania he gave a woman $100 and said that her grocery costs “were already going down”. If he does that, then extrapolate out: that’s $520,000,000,000 right there in government assistance! (100,000,000 households x $100 per week x 52 weeks). Just a happy half trillion to keep MAGA from attacking the Whitehouse with pitchforks and torches, probably not enough.
    Of course, that doesn’t include our future wars. As folks see the collapse of Pax Americana, they are gonna take their shot. And just like Trump 45 with COVID, Trump 47 will wait far too long and then overcommit after it’s too late.

    And the debt is going to go nuts. I’m thinking $20 trillion easy, if not doubling that current $35T… because he doesn’t care. It’s not his money!

    And he’ll be blaming it all on the “poor economy” that was handed to him by Biden, no doubt.

    In short: Don’t give that grifter the chance to just increase the Dent Ceiling without congressional oversight, because we are going to see MASSIVE spending via executive order if you do.
    (because midterms and reelections will at least make Congress feign concern).

    Merry Autocracy and a Happy New Oligarchy to all!

    4
  21. Gustopher Avatar
    Gustopher

    @MarkedMan: ok, but if a school shooter goes back in time and kills 50 people in a German school, including Hitler, would that be a net good or bad?

  22. Gustopher Avatar
    Gustopher

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    Don’t give that grifter the chance to just increase the Dent Ceiling without congressional oversight, because we are going to see MASSIVE spending via executive order if you do.

    All appropriations are done by congress, and while the president can shuffle things from one box to another to some degree, he cannot spend money not first appropriated by Congress.

    And if we are in the world where he does anyway, we’re in territories where he could just issue debt illegally too.

    2
  23. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    @Gustopher:
    Wouldn’t work.
    Wrong target.
    Hitler was in school in Austria, not Germany.

    1
  24. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    @Gustopher: I can come up with a hypothetical that shows that chaotic destruction has a good outcome, but my lived experience is this: Good outcomes can come from accidental chaos. Rebuilding after hurricanes, health protocols developed after a major outbreak, etc. But I honestly can’t remember a single time that malignant or angry chaos has resulted in a positive outcome. The riots after Rodney King or Freddie Gray? All they resulted in was mass migration of businesses from the affected area and a “Yep, I thought they were just violent crazies” from a good portion of the larger population. Storming the Capital by Trump’s crazies? Tell me one good thing that came out of the chaos that created, for society as a whole or the people that engaged in it.

    All my life I’ve heard “The system is so corrupt we have to break it all down”. The Red Brigade, the later years Black Panthers, the SLA. But nothing good every came from any of it.

    1
  25. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    Removing the debt limit as requiring Congressional authority per year is entirely sensible.
    But you then need to get the entire political system to look at sustainable debt and revenue.
    Which seems unlikely, as of now.
    Both parties, but Republicans in particular, seem addicted to willing the ends without willing the means.

    The US has a lot of monetary cushion, with the dollar as the global reserve currency.
    But that is not infinite.
    See the 1980’s bond crisis.

    The thing is, the US can easily rectify its debt/deficit (not the same, but related) issues by quite moderate tax increases (federal VAT, capital gains tax, etc) plus sensible expenditure reviews.
    e.g Is there unnecessary federal/state duplication? Could generalised spending be replaced by more targeted?
    Also simplifying the tax code wouldn’t hurt.
    And (see other thread) a wealth tax (or at least an inheritance tax) on billionaire level fortunes.

    2
  26. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @DK:

    Dems have never claimed to support temporarily eliminating the debt ceiling just for Republican presidents/congresses only. So the bothsidesers would still be off-base, per usual.

    To be fair, I didn’t think “eliminating the debt ceiling” has been a Democratic taking point out position–please let me know if I am wrong about that.

    By and large, most recent extensions have happened under Democratic presidents based on timing.

    During those sessions, for obvious reasons, Democrats have wanted the raise to go through. And generally speaking, historically they have been FAR less likely to make it an issue than Republicans have.

    I also totally understand them deciding to extract the maximum political value in… March (?) when this comes up again. That is good politics.

    And at the same time we should also ask be on with saying that good politics (especially in the short term) doesn’t equate to go long term decisions for the Nation.

    The broader problem is that in many respects we have hit the end results of game theory (or rather “The Prisoner Game”) being applied to national politics.

    1
  27. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    A modest proposal:the debt ceiling shall not apply only when Congress passes a budget.

    2
  28. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @Gustopher: Remember, “everyone kills Hitler on their first trip back.”

    It’s problematical. 🙁

    1

Trending