Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

The House votes down a debt-ceiling increase

The House Republican leadership brought up a bill Tuesday afternoon to raise the federal debt limit to $16.7 trillion, as per President Obama's fiscal 2012 budget request, but not for the sake of approving it. Instead, they wanted to show the White House what it already knows: that a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling was a political non-starter. Sure enough, the bill was easily defeated, 318 to 97.

The Democratic leadership, smelling a rat, had urged its membership to vote against the proposal too. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, told reporters Tuesday that he'd advised his caucus "not to play this political charade" and risk providing fodder for a "30-second ad attack," according to The Hill. Eighty-two Democrats took his advice, while seven others voted "present." Ninety-seven supported the increase.

Too bad Democrats didn't offer a bill simply to increase the debt ceiling to $16.2 trillion. That's the amount called for by the budget resolution that House Republicans approved for the fiscal 2012. Or $17.2 trillion, the amount that same resolution projected for fiscal 2013. What rationale would the GOP have offered for voting against either of those?

The House GOP leaders have acknowledged that the limit must be raised, taking pains to reassure Wall Street that they won't drag out this fight long enough to force a default. The only question is how much discretion lawmakers will agree to take away from future Congresses.

Critics of the debt-ceiling legislation are focusing on the wrong problem here. Raising the debt limit is like affixing postage on the package you've already pledged to deliver. If Congress doesn't raise the limit, it won't be able to honor the commitments lawmakers already made. The problem is in the commitments, not the limit. 

The budget resolution is one such commitment. It's also a fine framework for reducing deficits, given that it can set in motion reconciliation bills that force changes to mandatory spending programs and tax rates. The problem is that it's not a must-pass piece of legislation. Although the Constitution calls on Congress to pass one every year, if lawmakers can't agree on one in any given year, they proceed without it. That's what happened last year, and it's likely to happen again in 2011.

The annual appropriations bills are must-pass measures. Government shuts down without them. The appropriations process, however, doesn't control mandatory spending programs such as Medicare and farm subsidies. Those programs typically run on autopilot, and it takes an enormous amount of political muscle to change them.

The same is true for taxes, with one enormous exception: the Bush-era tax cuts, which are due to expire next year. That looming expiration will force Congress to decide whether to let rates rise back to the level in 2001, which would force most Americans to pay more in taxes. One of the reasons the debt ceiling has to be raised now is the deal Congress struck with Obama late last year, which renewed the Bush tax cuts and piled on additional temporary cuts in payroll and business taxes. And one of the reasons the House GOP's budget resolution contemplates several trillion dollars in additional debt is that it assumes all the Bush tax cuts will be renewed in 2012.

Anyway, the fact that the federal government has hit its $14.3-trillion debt limit is just a manifestation of decisions Congress and the White House made about taxes, entitlements and appropriations. Members on both sides of the political fence have declared their unwillingness to vote for an increase in the debt limit unless the measure also restricts future spending and deficits in some meaningful way. I get that, and I share the concern about the mounting debt. But the real measure of lawmakers' intentions regarding the deficit is how they vote on tax, spending and entitlement bills, not whether they agree to honor the commitments Congress has already made.

-- Jon Healey

 

 

Comments () | Archives (2)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Steve Bowen

Well done Mr. Healey. Another way to address Democrats' failures with a euphemism. "Lawmakers!" (I'm laughing -- really!) Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress last year. They controlled everything! But you just couldn't bring yourself to write the word Democrats in a context of wrongdoing, could you. Ordinarily one might believe that's odd because you seem never to have such problems bashing Republicans without use of a single euphemism, as you did again in this blog. You seem eager to always just lay it out there for members of that party.

"Although the Constitution calls on Congress to pass one every year, if lawmakers can't agree on one in any given year, they proceed without it. That's what happened last year"

By the way, Joe Biden skipped town. Indeed, he left the country. Many could easily conclude that the administration is not very serious about these negotiations when its "point man" just ups and leaves the table. And I didn't see that in your comments either.

Jon Healey

@Steve Bowen - I used "lawmakers" because the constitutional duty to pass a budget doesn't change depending on who's in power. The current Congress, with power split between Dems and GOP, isn't likely to pass a budget, just as last year's Dem-dominated one didn't. And I suspect if we searched back in time, we'd find other instances too -- but that's just a guess on my part.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...