OPINION
THE
EDITORIAL BOARD
Are Republicans Willing to Raise the Debt
Ceiling?
May 8, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/opinion/biden-republicans-debt-ceiling.html
By The
Editorial Board
The
editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate
from the newsroom.
President
Biden is offering congressional Republicans a reasonable path to resolve the
standoff over raising the federal debt ceiling. He has rightly insisted the
ceiling itself must be raised without conditions, so the government can meet
the obligations it already has incurred, while expressing a willingness to
separately negotiate measures to slow the growth of the federal debt.
As Mr. Biden
and congressional leaders prepare to meet on Tuesday, the question is whether
Republicans are serious about avoiding a crisis. The party’s leaders so far
have offered up only a mix of outlandish demands and reckless threats. A bill
to raise the debt ceiling that House Republicans passed last month, which House
Speaker Kevin McCarthy describes as the party’s negotiating position, is more
in the nature of a demand for unconditional surrender. It would require
Democrats to accept a long wish list of Republican priorities, including deep
cuts in federal spending, and to accept the reversal of recent victories,
including investments in tax enforcement and green energy. All for less than a
year of peace before the government would hit the debt ceiling again.
There is
not much time for an agreement to be hammered out: The federal government may
not have enough money to meet all of its obligations as soon as the beginning
of June.
Debt
ceiling crises have become a recurring feature of American political life. The
government requires congressional permission to borrow money; Congress does so
by setting a limit on total borrowing. Raising that limit was once a routine
act of good housekeeping, but Republicans have seized on the votes as a chance
to refight battles they are otherwise unable to win, demanding the reversal of
legislation already passed and of spending already approved.
The United
States borrows heavily to cover a growing gap between tax revenue and spending.
The federal debt totals about $24.6 trillion, equal to roughly 94 percent of
the nation’s gross domestic product, a high level by historical standards. The
government spent nearly $1 trillion on interest payments in the first quarter
of the year, and the combination of rising interest rates and an ever-larger
debt is likely to raise that figure substantially.
The debt
ceiling, however, is not a useful mechanism for preventing the federal
government from living beyond its means. When Congress passes a spending bill,
it makes a commitment to spend money on roads or aircraft carriers or cancer
research. People’s lives and livelihoods depend on those promises. Much of the
nation’s economic activity depends on those promises. And to meet those
obligations, whatever is not raised in taxes must be borrowed. A debt limit was
intended to facilitate that borrowing. Until World War I, Congress voted on
individual rounds of borrowing. In 1917 it instead authorized borrowing up to a
fixed limit. But that limit does not stop the government from incurring new obligations
that can be met only by raising the debt limit. As a result, as this board
wrote in 1961, “The debt limit does not limit the debt.”
Republicans
who have seized on debt ceiling votes as useful leverage are playing a
dangerous game. And it has become more dangerous over time because the repeated
rounds of chicken have emboldened some to doubt that hitting the ceiling would
cause a crisis. This is highly irresponsible. As most members of Congress
profess to understand, Treasuries are regarded around the world as the nearest
thing to a risk-free investment, and investor confidence that the United States
will repay its debts does not just provide a safe harbor for investors; it is
also the basis of a wide range of other transactions. A blow to that confidence
would have far-reaching economic consequences for America’s central role in
shoring up the global financial system.
A
functional government cannot debate whether to pay its bills, and Mr. Biden has
rightly insisted that there can be no price for raising the debt ceiling. But
there is a difference between talking about the federal debt and talking about
the debt ceiling. Congress has an obligation to pay what is already owed, but
the president and congressional Republicans ought to spend more time talking
with each other about the scale of future borrowing.
Given the
popularity of the programs that account for the vast majority of federal
spending, the most sensible way for the United States to reduce its reliance on
borrowed money is primarily by raising taxes.
Still,
Democrats may also have to accept that, having failed to get rid of the debt
ceiling last year, a future deal with this Republican House will require some
spending cuts, too. Democrats could have voted to eliminate the debt ceiling
between the fall elections and January, when Republicans took control of the
House, or they could have voted to provide the government with sufficient
borrowing capacity until the next congressional elections in 2024. Instead they
chose this confrontation. Mr. Biden last fall labeled proposals to eliminate
the debt ceiling “irresponsible.” Other Democrats appeared to relish the
politics of a fight. Now they are facing the consequences, which will most
likely include the partial reversal of legislative victories won during Mr.
Biden’s first two years.
Should
another opportunity arise, perhaps Democrats will take the lesson.
There are
sensible alternatives. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority
leader, proposed in 2011 that Congress should empower the president to raise
the debt ceiling. A group of Democratic senators introduced legislation to that
effect this year. Under the plan, a two-thirds vote in both houses could still
block an increase.
Abolition
would be even more expedient. Congress could simply authorize the government to
borrow the funds necessary to make any payments that Congress has separately
authorized.
Indeed,
some Democrats and liberal groups argue that the administration could get rid
of the debt ceiling unilaterally — for example, by issuing special kinds of
bonds or even by minting a single, valuable coin. The legality of such measures
is uncertain, the consequences unclear.
Administration
officials reportedly have also discussed whether the president could assert
that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, because the 14th Amendment requires
the government to meet its financial obligations to creditors. This could
eliminate the debt ceiling, but the potential for a court fight and financial
volatility is significant.
The
Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, put it well when she said in 2021 that it
would be a crisis simply for the United States to be in a position in which it
faced a choice between such experiments and default. She reiterated on Sunday
that there are “no good options” if Congress does not act. “We should not get
to the point where we need to consider whether the president can go on issuing
debt,” she said. “This would be a constitutional crisis.”
There is
still time for Congress to act before the United States finds itself
confronting those kinds of fateful choices.
The
editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is
separate from the newsroom.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário