Schwab: A manufactured crisis over a manufactured ceiling

By Sid Schwab / Herald columnist

It wasn’t supposed to be like this.

When the ability of the government to borrow money was included in the Constitution, there weren’t political parties. Nor did the founders envision the evolution of two dominant ones, followed by the devolution of one into undemocratic nihilism; genuflecting to a pathological liar, would-be autocrat, and, now, convicted sexual abuser; a party unwilling to stop defending and mirroring him, to resume partnership in democracy. But here we are.

In the beginning, borrowing against “the full faith and credit” of the United States required congressional approval in each instance. As the country grew and expenditures increased, it became unwieldy; thus was born the “debt ceiling” concept (Monkey Cage: tinyurl.com/historylesson4u). The idea was that Congress could spend money up to a legislated limit without going through the process of repetitive authorization. Streamlining, in other words, the ability of the government to function.

Then came World War I, for which expenses could not be predicted. Containing a not-yet insane Republican party, Congress approved the first Liberty Loan Act of 1917 (GovTrackUS: tinyurl.com/2borrow4u) Then, shortly, another; each distributed borrowing limits between government bonds and one-year certificates, but freed the treasury to issue debt more efficiently. That worked until 1939, when WWII and the Great Depression occasioned eliminating those distribution rules, simplifying future spending.

Emphasis on “future.”

Just as there’s confusion between debt and deficit, the function of the debt ceiling is widely misunderstood and, by Republicans, intentionally mischaracterized. If someone owes too much on their credit card, they analogize, the solution isn’t to let them spend more. Which sounds sensible, until you realize they’re proposing reneging on what’s already owed. In their credit card metaphor, they’d destroy the owner’s credit score forever, if not longer. How is paying one’s bills and then addressing future spending even controversial?

Shouldn’t preserving “full faith and credit” come first?

If the debtor were your child, would you force them into default to teach a lesson, or would you insist they pay their bills, responsibly? Would you prevent them from paying until they stopped volunteering at a food bank? Dropped out of school? Poisoned a reservoir? Do I analogize as badly as they? Not really.

Though it wasn’t foreseen as such, the debt limit has been a political wedge for several decades. In 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama said he would not vote to raise the limit without a concurrent plan to lower the deficit. Emphasis on “concurrent,” as opposed to de facto Speaker Marjorie Taylor Greene’s extortion, for which — surprise — Mitch McConnell and most Republican senators have voiced support. As a condition for raising the debt ceiling, they demand undoing President Biden’s most important and popular accomplishments: Money for environmental protection, job creation, social programs including the Veterans Administration, and increased funding for the IRS to track down wealthy — emphasis on “wealthy” — tax cheats. Oh-so cleverly asking the impossible, they’ll blame the consequences on Biden. Even without Tucker’s braying, MAGAs will believe.

Under the Obama administration, the bipartisan Budget Control Act was established. It slowed spending until Republicans recaptured the White House and ignored the limits, increasing discretionary spending by 16 percent. During Trump’s “presidency,” when pre-failed, top-heavy tax cuts and increased spending created fully one-third of our current national debt, they raised the ceiling three times, stringlessly. It was the first time Republicans exhibited hypocrisy. McConnell still hasn’t. (I could be wrong.)

The value of a two-party system is in hashing out differences on critical issues — like budgets — and finding acceptable middle ground, based on concern for what’s best for the most Americans, as opposed to “owning” the other side. Until the Republican party, featuring Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Roger Ailes, et. al., rejected cooperation, paving the path to where we are now, it worked pretty well.

So far, Biden has refused, rightly, to bargain the credit limit; saying, again rightly, that budget talks should be separate, as intended. In demanding otherwise, Republicans are amplifying their already disproportionate, constitutionally-granted minority power. Biden was elected decisively, based on what he promised; which he’s doing. Holding the economy hostage, MAGA Republicans aim to undo the electoral will of the people, just as they ignore the huge majority of Americans who favor gun control and abortion rights.

Absent balanced budgets, Republicans will continue their pervicacious crisis-creation. The national debt will continue to rise, with typical rapidity under Republican administrations; less so, as usual, under Democrats. The last balanced budget was during the Clinton administration, which also marked the appearance of Gingrich’s scorched-earth approach to compromise. With today’s Republicans’ even greater intransigence, it’s unlikely we’ll ever see agreement on the sort of spending cuts and tax increases that would eliminate deficit spending. Not unless Republicans return to electing qualified, democracy-supporting leaders, assuming there remain any who fit the description.

Also, the debt ceiling may have been unconstitutional from the beginning (New York Times: tinyurl.com/noceiling4u).

Email Sid Schwab at columnsid@gmail.com.