Kevin McCarthy, Joe Biden, and the Deeply Unserious Debate Over the Debt Ceiling
An impasse created by years of politicized, myopic decision making in Washington is pushing the federal government ever closer to a dangerous cliff.

As the clock ticks toward a possible default on the national debt, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) and top Democrats in Washington—as well as media allies on both sides—are locked in a staring contest over who can take the matter less seriously.
The latest development in this slow-motion train wreck was a speech McCarthy delivered Monday from the New York Stock Exchange. "Debt limit negotiations are an opportunity to examine our nation's finances," he said, stressing that a bill to raise the nation's debt limit would only get through the House if it was pared with spending cuts. The House will vote on such a bill within "the coming weeks," McCarthy promised.
So far, so good. A debt default would be an economic catastrophe for the country and should be averted at all costs—but McCarthy is right that this is a good opportunity to examine America's out-of-control borrowing habit. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't authorize more borrowing. It merely gives the Treasury permission to borrow funds to pay for what Congress has previously agreed to spend. But it is the moment when past congressional budgeting decisions come home to roost—the equivalent of seeing your credit card statement after a blowout vacation that you couldn't afford. You still have to pay the bills, but it should be a wake-up call.
But while McCarthy is saying some of the right things about this situation, he still doesn't seem to have much of a plan for what to do. Monday's speech was devoid of specifics beyond a promise to cut spending back to last year's levels—something he's been proposing since January, just weeks after the passage of a year-end omnibus bill that hiked spending across the board—and some rather vague promises about tightening work requirements for welfare programs.
Notably absent from Monday's speech was any promise about balancing the budget in 10 years, something that had been part of the House GOP's earlier list of demands for the debt ceiling negotiations. As Reason has previously noted, it's pretty much impossible to make the budget balance in a decade without making serious alternations to entitlement programs including Social Security and Medicare, and McCarthy has promised not to touch those as part of the debt ceiling package.
Importantly, it remains unclear whether even this narrower list of prospective ideas can pass the GOP-controlled House. Asked in an interview on CNBC just moments after his New York speech ended, McCarthy refused to give a straight answer about whether he had enough votes for this still-murky debt ceiling package.
As Democrats were quick to point out, McCarthy's "plan" is little more than a series of starting points for negotiations. "What we got today was not a plan," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) told NBC News after McCarthy's speech. "It was a recycled pile of the same things he's been saying for months."
But, well, Democrats are just recycling the same things they've been saying for months too. The White House has been steadfast in refusing to negotiate with House Republicans until McCarthy presents a full-fledged budget proposal like the one President Joe Biden presented on March 9. "I don't know what we're negotiating if I don't know what they want, what they're going to do," Biden reiterated to reporters over the weekend.
This is an unserious approach too. Both McCarthy and Biden (and everyone else involved) are well aware of why Democrats want to see a full Republican budget plan before they start negotiating—and it has very little to do with the debt ceiling. Instead, Democrats will pick apart the proposal to score political points by criticizing whatever spending cuts the House GOP outlines.
Indeed, Democrats and their allies are already eager to demagogue the bare bones of what McCarthy has outlined. Liberal Substacker Matt Yglesias says it is "irresponsible for Kevin McCarthy to run around threatening to blow up the global economy in order to snatch poor people's health care away." At Talking Points Memo, David Kurtz is already decrying the "draconian spending cuts" that McCarthy has proposed. That's insane, because McCarthy's so-called plan merely calls for rolling back federal spending to the level it was at in 2022—a whole four months ago.
Here's the really crazy thing: Even if Congress did somehow manage to hold the discretionary spending level next year, overall spending would still increase. That's because the $1.7 trillion discretionary budget is only a fraction of federal spending. Other items—like the so-called mandatory spending on entitlements like Social Security and Medicare as well as the rapidly increasing interest costs connected to the $31 trillion national debt—will continue to grow and drive federal deficits higher.
The crux of this problem is two-fold. First, Republicans have spent the better part of the past decade completely ignoring fiscal policy—while in many cases actively chasing out members who did care about this stuff. As a result, the GOP has very little institutional sense of what a solidly conservative federal budget would actually look like. Is there any spending plan that would get the support of all 222 Republican members right now? McCarthy doesn't seem to know.
Second, Democrats have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to acknowledge that America has a serious borrowing problem, which must be the starting point for any negotiation about the debt ceiling regardless of what other policies may or may not end up being part of the final package. They don't need to see a full budget proposal to acknowledge things like the Congressional Budget Office's forecast that says the federal government is on track to spend $10.5 trillion on interest payments in the next decade—and more if interest rates remain higher than expected.
Why should Republicans put forth a budget plan when they know in advance that Democrats only want to use it to paint the GOP as a party of benefit-cutting skinflints? Why should Democrats negotiate in good faith when they know quite well that Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when a Dem is in the White House? Neither side has much to gain from doing what the other wants, so no one moves.
But the impasse created by years of poor, myopic decision making in Washington is pushing the federal government ever closer to a dangerous cliff. McCarthy and Biden need to get serious about this, and soon.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"You still have to pay the bills, but it should be a wake-up call."
Neither of those is true in DC.
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page..
.
.
.
For Details►—————————————➤ https://EarningDoors1.blogspot.Com
They only need to keep the scam going until after the next election. Unfortunately, there's always a next election. Always a next election where some people can accuse others of wanting to throw grandmother off the cliff while the others protest that they have no intention of cutting grandma's benefits by a nickel.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Of course, there will never be a debate; it will be a 'negotiation' carried out in a corrupt and biased media.
All we know for sure is it will not result in any meaningful action until we amend the constitution to make legislative salaries a percentage of the budget surplus, while outlawing any other income except those salaries.
myopic decision making in Washington is pushing the federal government ever closer to a dangerous cliff.
We should all get behind it and push.
Surely it's not the cliff that's dangerous, but the landing below? 😉
Why should Republicans put forth a budget plan when they know in advance that Democrats only want to use it to paint the GOP as a party of benefit-cutting skinflints?
Yes, the GOP should stick to Hunter Bidens Penis and trannie dancing bans. The important stuff.
We know you'll stick to defending Democrats at all costs.
And fucking children. Soros promised Shrike all the little boys he could ever want if Shrike became his creature.
“… if it was pared with spending cuts…”
Paired, perhaps?
Perhaps.
"without making serious alternations to entitlement programs "
Alterations, perhaps?
Isn't literally everyone on staff a "senior editor"?
Does that title not require some knowledge of the English language?
Fuck you, cut spending.
Why do you hate grandma?
carob chips in the cookies.
She is responsible for unsustainable Medicare and SS spending?
She didn't vote against all this bullshit despite having lived through the Depression.
One side is proposing a trillion dollar increase in spending.
One side is talking 2022 spending caps the next few years, no growth, taking back billion in unspent federal dollars, and removing programs.
Eric - boaf sides
This is reasons problem. Their ever loving use of the nirvana fallacy to run every problem as a both sides attack. And it is an attack as they fail to recognize a few steps in the right direction even if not perfect is better than many steps in the wrong direction.
It sounds like Reason libertarians are also very unserious about dealing with the budget. They just want to attack both sides and score political points for the fact that both sides are scoring political points.
Basically what I see. Declare all non perfect solutions to attack everyone else never providing a counter. Mostly done to attack the GOP to be just as bad as the DNC who many of them "reluctantly" voted for. Never will they applaud the small steps to encourage the bigger steps. And they wonder why the GOP doesn't ever consider their views anymore.
What have Republicans done to reduce the budget when they are in power? Sure, they aren't as bad, but still pretty useless if that's what you are interested in and they deserve lots of criticism for pretending they care about the budget but failing to do anything about it when they have the opportunity.
When did they have overriding majorities to do anything without negotiation?
Last administration attempted to cut down 10% of all federal agencies. Tax cuts to slow spending. Remove 2 to add 1 in regulations. Many senators have pushed for spending growth freezes. Paul Ryan introduced multiple plans to stop spending. Massie and Rand Paul are infamous for highlighting wasteful spending.
Again youre asking for perfection instead of a step or two in the right direction.
There is a large percentage of the GOP who are centrist Washington general players who will not stand up to increase spending. They need to be removed. Mcconnel being one of the worst.
Baseline budgeting needs to be ended, only talked about by the GOP.
But the problem is they have never had the number of people to enact significant change. Even mild change is better than exacerbated spending of the left. They are not equal.
This is part of the problem. Instead of propping up those trying to cut you handwaive them away along with the rest that do need to be replaced. There will never be change using that type of narrative.
There, FTFY. The GOP hasn't been even moderately serious about fiscal responsibility since Bill Clinton left office. This was painfully obvious under Bush II, and the last pretensions were stripped away when Trump and a GOP Congress doubled the deficit in two years. This was bad enough by itself, but it also left them wide open to charges of naked hypocrisy for opposing reckless spending under Biden.
But Republicans are worse, always, every time, not just on deficit spending but economic growth. That's because Republicans' only policy priority is cutting taxes, and they do it to the tune of trillions of dollars every chance they get.
I don't know why people continue to give Republicans credit for something they are lying about.
You are neither serious nor reasonable, and I imagine your life beyond this forum reveals a thoroughly unlikable and likely friendless narcissist. Everything you post reeks of little dick energy.
That's interesting considering I have a famously huge dick.
You'll be good enough to link to evidence that Republicans enact lower deficits?
No, you’re confused. You are anally penetrated by huge dicks. Possibly more than one at a time. That’s not the same thing.
Actually they're worse. Spending grows fastest when the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency. The only time congressional Reps even pretend to give a damn about fiscal responsibility is when they have a Dem President to bash.
Divided government: it ain't great, but it sucks a little less than the alternative.
They're not scoring political points, though.
One side is proposing a trillion dollar increase in spending.
Remember when the deficit hit $2.5 trillion in 2020 and you said it was all the fault of the House? And Donnie and Mitch were not to blame for that record deficit?
Now it’s all Biden and Schumer’s fault?
2020 Dem House GOP Senate and President
2023 GOP House Dem Senate and President
No difference.
Don’t worry. Your beloved Republicans will put up a ””””fight”””” and then roll over like they always do, because in the end there are two kinds of Republicans:
– Moronic twats who only want to fight culture wars and don’t give a shit about economics.
– Jobbers
And you’ll never blame them because “at least they were trying”. The irony of your own nirvana fallacy complaints will never occur to you because the Republican party is a “serious” solution with a “real chance” of working. Next time. Next time the Republicans are in power they will really do what they’ve always promised to do every other time they were elected to power and failed to do. Next time! REAL REPUBLICANISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!
The problem here is that politician on both sides of the aisle like their jobs and so will never talk seriously. The debt ceiling showdown is a game that we see far too often. In the end, the debt ceiling has to be raised and so it will. McCarthy is not going to take the country over the cliff, and everyone knows that, so it is just a matter of time before he relents.
Image if the time and energy that goes into the debt ceiling fight were actually spent budgeting.
Look, just tell me who I should reluctantly vote for.
The bigger spenders since they are perfectly equal.
the bullshit soap opera over the debt is totally insulting
A debt default is not a catastrophe and it should not be avoided at all costs. It should be embraced by everyone under 40 as the ONLY way to force those older than that to wake the fuck up and get serious about spending. All the spending is on older folks. Which is also the wealthiest demographic. And the preponderance of critters. So of course they will never ever be serious until they forced to. And debt default is precisely that.
How to get under 40's to force that default? Well obviously it ain't via DeRp which is completely captured by over40's. Nor is it one of the existing third parties which are uselessly ideological.
It must be a party that is completely brutal about winning elections. Win. Implement the stuff that helps under 40 at the direct expense of over 40's. Deal with the consequences like actual adults not elderly semi-retired children. Generational war as has been happening for three or four decades now against the under 40
Maybe intelligent young people realize that a guarantee that they won't be on the hook for granny's and mom's basic needs is worth its weight in payroll taxes.
Surely the totally random possibility that you'd have to care for an elderly relative has nothing to do with free-market prowess.
Too low payroll taxes and the flimflam game is a big reason we've got $31 trillion in debt. That's what the trust fund bought - debt not assets. $31 trillion= $95,000 per citizen or $250,000 per taxpayer. But that $31 trillion in debt bought nothing productive except the risk-free collateral underneath high housing prices. Which btw are also a big poke in the eye for the under40
Debt that can't be paid won't be paid. Time for an old fashioned jubilee
We could easily balance the budget in a few short years if we just brought spending to precovid levels. Which is workable. At least without a senile crook in the White House that is destroying this country at a pace never before seen.
If you all value your freedom, your lives, and your prosperity, you had bette Roman on getting rid of the democrat party. We are past the point of there being an alternative.
Hell, I'm 46 and I'd vote for that party.
A debt default is assuredly a catastrophe. It will substantially increase borrowing costs for the US government indefinitely, will increase borrowing costs for US states and corporations as well, will mark the US as not to be trusted either politically or economically, will probably crash the dollar, resulting in imported inflation, and will also vastly accelerate de-dollarisation.
And further, there is no need for it. The US undoubtedly has the resources to keep financing its debt. What is lacks is an electoral base with the will or the power to restrain its representatives.
I call for a moratorium on speaking in the metaphor of household budgeting until we're sure that people aren't being made stupid.
"serious borrowing problem"
Nobody's borrowing shit. The government issues bonds by creating money out of thin air. What you call government borrowing is factually the injection of wealth into the private sector. You can't take the United States to a collection agency. It will either cover its obligations or else lose the credibility that gives the dollar value in the first place.
This is all transparently an attempt to force Democrats to enact a Republican social policy program, which citizens do not want. You enact policy via debate, elections, and legislating (see: Schoolhouse Rock). Forcing the other team to do it by holding the global economy and stature of America hostage is something else. Psychopathy, I think.
You want less wealth in the private sector (which is not how you phrase it, but it's what you're calling for), you raise taxes. The beauty of doing that instead of dismantling necessary and beloved safety net programs is that it doesn't hurt any vulnerable people.
What's that you say? Debt is supposedly the biggest crisis in the world, but we can't raise taxes because reasons? Don't you people have trouble sleeping knowing that you're trying to force an unpopular legislative agenda on hundreds of millions of people without simply using the normal democratic tools of persuasion and winning elections?
Tony, you’re too stupid and. Dishonest for this conversation. You are the problem.
Now Fauci off and go kill yourself.
The government issues bonds by creating money out of thin air. What you call government borrowing is factually the injection of wealth into the private sector.
Nope. US Treasuries are bonds like any other - hence issued by a borrower and bought by lenders. No wealth is injected into the private sector when the US issues Treasuries - it's an exchange of wealth assets, cash for USTs (or perhaps other bonds are sold to buy a new issue of USTs).
It's so easy to spot a lefty-fan reason writer... They always pretend that the GOP plan isn't a 'plan' at all. For leftard brains there always has to be some "Big Plan" of Gov-Gun usage against it's citizens or it's not a plan at all.
"stressing that a bill to raise the nation's debt limit would only get through the House if it was pared with spending cuts"
...but what's the GOP's plan???
Okay Boehm read carefully so you don't miss it this time....
NO raising the DEBT LIMIT without a SPENDING CUT....
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
In the end Biden has no choice. The bill will be submitted. If he vetoes it he will have to negotiate as the government shuts down. Negotiate before the veto, or veto and see the government shut down, and then negotiate. It is up to Biden. Why should the GOP just cave to Biden? He is not a dictator, yet. The house controls spending, Biden needs to work with them. Personally I don’t care if the government shuts down. Essential services continue. And don’t worry about those poor politicians in DC, they all get paid too. That would be a good change, if the government shuts down, lawmakers do not get paid until the funding bills get signed and lose the pay they missed. Maybe then they would negotiate in good faith. President, Senators, House Reps. Judiciary, and the Cabinet would be a good start.
Biden doesn't need to pass the bill because it will never pass the Senate. I suspect it will not even pass the House.
Sometimes I really miss Ken Shultz. If he were still here, no doubt he would once again correctly point out how Reason sacrificed what little credibility they still had when they opposed the relatively small Medicaid cuts the republicans proposed the last time we went through this ridiculous charade.
You're completely and totally full of shit and you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this issue, Reason.