ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion: Mitch McConnell’s debt limit game-playing is lunacy, and we should say so

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,113
58,286
113
Opinion by
Greg Sargent
Columnist
Yesterday at 4:46 p.m. EDT



The current position held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and most Republican senators is that this fall they will vote in favor of the United States defaulting on its debts, leading to economic Armageddon.

You don’t hear their position described this way in many press accounts, to be sure. But that is functionally their position: They are threatening to withhold all GOP support when Congress votes to suspend the debt limit, probably sometime in October.
If the debt limit is not suspended or raised, the United States will default, with horrible consequences, and Republicans are threatening to vote no.
McConnell spelled out his position in new detail in an interview with Punchbowl News. He says Democrats must suspend or raise the debt limit as part of their multi-trillion-dollar reconciliation bill, where they can do so by simple majority, without any Republicans.



If they do not, McConnell says, no Republicans will support suspending it or raising it as part of some other process, say, via a “clean” debt limit bill, or as part of a continuing resolution funding the government at the end of September (which would require 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster).
This is being widely portrayed as creating a dilemma for Democrats. And that’s true, if only in the sense that epic Republican bad faith is creating a dilemma for the more responsible party.
Democrats joined with Republicans to suspend the debt limit under President Donald Trump, and a good deal of debt was racked up during that period. Given this, Democrats are insisting that Republicans must join them to suspend the debt limit this time — suspending it would effectively render it inoperative until a future date — and they are daring Republicans to vote no.







One way Democrats might do this — which is favored by the White House — is to bundle the debt limit suspension with a government funding bill that would also include huge amounts of disaster aid, much of it for red states. The thinking is this disaster money should make it harder for Republicans to vote against it.
But Politico reports that Republicans are still threatening to withhold their votes, even if that disaster money is in that package, and blasting the White House and Democrats for even considering this approach.
Remarkably, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) insists not only that this won’t pass but also the mere fact that Democrats might do this shows they’re operating “in bad faith” and don’t actually have the “back” of disaster-sufferers.

Just try to fathom how deranged that position truly is. Republicans insist Democrats must deal with the debt limit themselves, with no Republican support, and if Democrats package this with other things that must be done — such as disaster aid or funding the government — that’s somehow placing unfair pressure on Republicans to join in raising it.






But Republicans themselves agree the debt limit must be suspended or raised. Kennedy agrees with this. So does McConnell! As McConnell puts it, “America should never and never will default.”
So why shouldn’t they feel obliged to actually vote to suspend or raise the debt limit for the good of the country, just as Democrats did under a Republican president, when this also had to be done for the good of the country?

Pressed on this by Punchbowl News, McConnell offered an invented principle: When Democrats are in the majority, it is solely their responsibility to deal with this. “They’re in charge of this government,” McConnell said.
Of course, Republicans will be creating the need for this to clear a 60-vote threshold by filibustering; Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is already threatening exactly this.


One might argue that precisely because Republicans are stooping to such depths, Democrats should indeed dispense with the debt limit by simple majority in the reconciliation process, rather than gamble on whether Republicans really will withhold their votes in the end.

But it’s not clear that the reconciliation bill will be done by the time the debt limit must be dealt with. What’s more, accepting this argument essentially accepts that Republican bad faith must triumph.
This would also enshrine the principle that GOP filibusters and bad faith are simply natural, inevitable features of our governing order and political life, ones in which Republicans have no agency and which Democrats are singlehandly responsible for overcoming. There is a reasonable case for forcing them to actually take that vote, rather than accepting those things, though it certainly does seem risky.
But all that aside, what keeps getting lost in all the discussion, as one Democrat correctly pointed out to me, is that the Republican position is essentially to threaten to vote to default. That’s insane and reckless, and media accounts should find a way to communicate this to viewers and readers.

 
What a bunch of hypocrites on every side when it comes to this issue. It's the same damn thing depending on who's in power at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tfxchawk
You couldn't have picked any of the multiple threads about this very topic that were started yesterday? You just pepsi'd yourself.



The dems are in a tight spot.
 
What a bunch of hypocrites on every side when it comes to this issue. It's the same damn thing depending on who's in power at the time.
False. This isn't a both sides issue until Democrats play with their shit in the Capitol building.
 
Democrats voted to do the right thing and raise the ceiling while Trump was in office. No roles have switched.
Did the Republicans threaten to spend 6 TRILLION dollars on a 50/50 vote despite a deficit of over 28 TRILLION dollars already?

If the dems want to govern responsibly than the Republicans should raise the debt ceiling, if the dems want to spend the country into oblivion then it is all on the dems.
 
Democrats voted to do the right thing and raise the ceiling while Trump was in office. No roles have switched.
Correction: Democrats voted to have NO debt ceiling in July of 2019, when the publicly held debt stood at $16.2 trillion.
That debt is now increased 6 trillion dollars in just *two years to $22.2 trillion. Pelosi has asked for another 15 months of no debt limit. How many trillion more in debt would she like to add in that time?

The current position held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and most Republican senators is that this fall they will vote in favor of the United States defaulting on its debts, leading to economic Armageddon.

Why do people assume that of all the things the Federal government pays, it will fail to pay the only thing Constitutionally required - the debt.
I mean aside from engaging in ignorant, scaremongering demagoguery?
Interest on the debt will run about $300 billion dollars this year. Federal tax receipts are estimated to add up to $3,860 billion dollars.
Why is not increasing the debt a vote to default, when that isn't necessary? The government simply has to decide how to dole out a mere 3.5 trillion dollars.


*edited because I mistakenly wrote it took three years, not just two, for us to add another 6 trillion to the publicly held debt.
 
Correction: Democrats voted to have NO debt ceiling in July of 2019, when the publicly held debt stood at $16.2 trillion.
That debt is now increased 6 trillion dollars in just three years to $22.2 trillion. Pelosi has asked for another 15 months of no debt limit. How many trillion more in debt would she like to add in that time?

The current position held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and most Republican senators is that this fall they will vote in favor of the United States defaulting on its debts, leading to economic Armageddon.

Why do people assume that of all the things the Federal government pays, it will fail to pay the only thing Constitutionally required - the debt.
I mean aside from engaging in ignorant, scaremongering demagoguery?
Interest on the debt will run about $300 billion dollars this year. Federal tax receipts are estimated to add up to $3,860 billion dollars.
Why is not increasing the debt a vote to default, when that isn't necessary? The government simply has to decide how to dole out a mere 3.5 trillion dollars.
The 15 month thing alone makes this ****ing stupid. Tell us this is all a game for you without actually telling us this is a game for you.
 
All they want the country to do is fail so people will blame Biden. Again, Republicans would let all of us die if it made them wealthy and kept them in power. Pure EVIL. Mitch McConnell is an enemy to the Republic.
@abby97

The fact that McConnell has said, just like he did with Obama, that his number one goal is for Biden to fail, and you LAUGHING is proof of how completely out of touch you are with what's going on in this country. Is there ANYTHING the Republicans could do that would convince you?

Trying to overturn an election. President calling Georgia SoS to find votes. VP asking if he can actually do it. Republican judges throwing all those cases out or voting against them. Neo-nazis storming the Capitol building smearing their shit on the walls, trying to over throw the government? Still with the cult leader, eh?
 
Did the Republicans threaten to spend 6 TRILLION dollars on a 50/50 vote despite a deficit of over 28 TRILLION dollars already?

If the dems want to govern responsibly than the Republicans should raise the debt ceiling, if the dems want to spend the country into oblivion then it is all on the dems.
How'd the deficit get that high? If you care about debt and deficit I don't know why you're okay with the massive tax break for corporations and the wealthy your side passed. The ONLY thing they passed with Trump in office, by the way. We tell you that the only time you care about spending is when Democrats have The White House. Then you prove us right, time after time after time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
Having a ceiling is not a common practice. The idea is absurd on it's face. Explain how having a "debt ceiling" precludes a budget getting passed and signed?
It doesn't, it just precludes adding to the debt.

So let's use the first $300 billion to handle the carrying costs of our insane debt, and then pass a budget to spend the remaining $3.5 trillion dollars collected in taxes without adding to the debt.
 
It doesn't even do that. The budget has passed. The debt is owed. How do you suggest we avoid paying that debt? The debt ceiling doesn't give Congress an out on that. All they can do is refuse to pay the bills that are due.
The only bill they can't refuse to pay is the constitutionally mandated spending - servicing the debt itself.

They'll have to cut some of the other trillions in largesse we can't afford.
 
The only bill they can't refuse to pay is the constitutionally mandated spending - servicing the debt itself.

They'll have to cut some of the other trillions in largesse we can't afford.
Sure...they can shut down the govt...again...and we'll see how that goes...again. Do you seriously take that as a solution? We hit the debt ceiling and everything grinds to a halt until revenues allow a day or two of govt activity?

Cutting anything would require a new budget that - again - has zero to do with some arbitrary debt ceiling. BTW, saying "we can't afford it" really depends on who you talk to doesn't it? Having a "debt ceiling" is stupid which is why we have one while very, very few other nations do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Sure...they can shut down the govt...again...and we'll see how that goes...again. Do you seriously take that as a solution? We hit the debt ceiling and everything grinds to a halt until revenues allow a day or two of govt activity?

Because that's the only choice, right? We have to 'shut down' the government instead of prioritize spending.

If you didn't have enough money to pay the mortgage, the car payment, the car insurance, the groceries, the utilities, Netflix and everything else you spend money on in a month, do you just not pay for anything, or do you consider dropping Netflix while you make sure you pay the mortgage?

Cutting anything would require a new budget that - again - has zero to do with some arbitrary debt ceiling.

Is the debt ceiling somehow less arbitrary than spending authorization?

BTW, saying "we can't afford it" really depends on who you talk to doesn't it?

Sure. Talk to an MMTer and they'll tell you we 'can afford' anything because we have a printing press.

But in terms of 'what can we afford', I think it starts with what you have available to spend. That would be taxes collected, which are estimated to come in around 3.8 trillion dollars. No need to 'shut down' the government, but there is a need to not spend money that requires them to create more debt.
 
  • Love
Reactions: abby97
@abby97

The fact that McConnell has said, just like he did with Obama, that his number one goal is for Biden to fail, and you LAUGHING is proof of how completely out of touch you are with what's going on in this country. Is there ANYTHING the Republicans could do that would convince you?

Trying to overturn an election. President calling Georgia SoS to find votes. VP asking if he can actually do it. Republican judges throwing all those cases out or voting against them. Neo-nazis storming the Capitol building smearing their shit on the walls, trying to over throw the government? Still with the cult leader, eh?
They actually allow a lunatic like you around children?
 
How'd the deficit get that high? If you care about debt and deficit I don't know why you're okay with the massive tax break for corporations and the wealthy your side passed. The ONLY thing they passed with Trump in office, by the way. We tell you that the only time you care about spending is when Democrats have The White House. Then you prove us right, time after time after time.
There you go again, making false statements without having any idea what you're talking about. I am and have always been against deficit spending, for both parties. I, unlike you, am not a lemming to blindly follow or agree with anything "my team" does. Deficit spending is bad, tax cuts on the other hand are good. The more money left in the private sector the better. The less money left to be spent by greedy self-serving politicians the better.

P.S. the lefts lie that the rich don't pay their fair share is laughable. Don't believe me, if you have time after ignoring your students and typing your garbage on this board, look it up.
 
Because that's the only choice, right? We have to 'shut down' the government instead of prioritize spending.

If you didn't have enough money to pay the mortgage, the car payment, the car insurance, the groceries, the utilities, Netflix and everything else you spend money on in a month, do you just not pay for anything, or do you consider dropping Netflix while you make sure you pay the mortgage?
When we're approaching the debt ceiling? Yes...that's the only choice. Again, the budget that is pushing the debt ceiling has already been passed and signed. Those are debts agreed to and owed.

Here's an analogy...you set a household debt ceiling of $1,000. You then charge $2,000 on multiple cards. As the credit card bills come due, you get closer and closer to the arbitrary ceiling you established. You still owe another $1,000 that you agreed to pay. Your choices are two...you can increase your debt ceiling or you can default on your debts.

Pay close attention here...what you plan on doing NEXT YEAR is immaterial. Your next budget is of zero interest to the credit card companies. You STILL owe that money you agreed to pay that put you over your ceiling.
Is the debt ceiling somehow less arbitrary than spending authorization?
Ummm...more arbitrary actually. A debt ceiling is far more arbitrary. It is the very definition of arbitrary - it's related to nothing. Spending authorizations are the exact opposite. They are agreements to pay for things we agree we want.
Sure. Talk to an MMTer and they'll tell you we 'can afford' anything because we have a printing press.

But in terms of 'what can we afford', I think it starts with what you have available to spend. That would be taxes collected, which are estimated to come in around 3.8 trillion dollars. No need to 'shut down' the government, but there is a need to not spend money that requires them to create more debt.
So now you're talking about a budget ceiling which is very different from a debt ceiling. It's how states produce a balanced budget. We plan on collecting $X and we will use those dollars to pay for A, B, and C. Anything collected over that amount can be spent or saved. If the state comes up short, they have to decide what to cut or find a new source of revenue. But only until the next budget.

Democrats earned the moniker "tax and spend" because they, at least, attempted to cover expenses with new revenue streams. It was the GOP that blew that apart with trickle down economics and the "Laugher" Curve which Bush Sr rightly dubbed "voodoo economics".
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
When we're approaching the debt ceiling? Yes...that's the only choice. Again, the budget that is pushing the debt ceiling has already been passed and signed. Those are debts agreed to and owed.

Here's an analogy...you set a household debt ceiling of $1,000. You then charge $2,000 on multiple cards. As the credit card bills come due, you get closer and closer to the arbitrary ceiling you established. You still owe another $1,000 that you agreed to pay. Your choices are two...you can increase your debt ceiling or you can default on your debts.

Pay close attention here...what you plan on doing NEXT YEAR is immaterial. Your next budget is of zero interest to the credit card companies. You STILL owe that money you agreed to pay that put you over your ceiling.

Ummm...more arbitrary actually. A debt ceiling is far more arbitrary. It is the very definition of arbitrary - it's related to nothing. Spending authorizations are the exact opposite. They are agreements to pay for things we agree we want.

So now you're talking about a budget ceiling which is very different from a debt ceiling. It's how states produce a balanced budget. We plan on collecting $X and we will use those dollars to pay for A, B, and C. Anything collected over that amount can be spent or saved. If the state comes up short, they have to decide what to cut or find a new source of revenue. But only until the next budget.

Democrats earned the moniker "tax and spend" because they, at least, attempted to cover expenses with new revenue streams. It was the GOP that blew that apart with trickle down economics and the "Laugher" Curve which Bush Sr rightly dubbed "voodoo economics".
Your analogy tries to conflate appropriations with federal debt by calling them both ‘debts’.

I don’t think you’ll find a court conflating them.

The holder of federal government debt has a property right to redemption.
The anticipatory recipient of government largess does not accrue a property right.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT