Why isn't debt limit AUTOMATICALLY raised when Congress votes to spend more than they tax?

[yurbud]

When I finally heard an explanation of the debt ceiling that made any kind of sense, this was my first thought.

HOW can you tell someone to spend money they don't have but not allow them to borrow it either?

Maybe we need something like the opposite of sequestration: if Congress doesn't pass taxes to pay the bills or raise the debt limit, a tax increase (preferably on those who can afford it most) will automatically be enacted to make up the difference.

[procon]

1. It used to be that way...

We had the “Gephardt Rule” until Gingrich abolished it and started using the routine debt ceiling for political leverage.

[johnd83]

2. Starve the beast

This is the culmination of decades of work by the right wing to create so much debt that we "have to" cut social spending. It is functioning exactly as designed. Normally the debt ceiling is increased as part of normal budget bills.

[SlipperySlope]

3. Few ways to look at this...

When the "Gephart Rule" was in effect it did almost what you ask; every House vote to increase spending was automatically accompanied by a matching resolution to increase debt. The Senate still had to vote on the increase however - it was never automatic there. I can't remember exactly which years the "Gephart Rule" applied. The rule was suspended and reinstated many times. I bet it was only in effect for about 20 actual years when all is said and done.

[dkf]

5. Found this...

It's a little dated as this piece was written in 2008 (when they still had the Gephardt rule) but the history is relevant.


The House may develop debt-limit legislation under House Rule XXVII,
commonly referred to as the Gephardt rule, named after its author, former
Representative Richard Gephardt. The rule, which was established by P.L. 96-78 and
first applied in calendar year 1980, provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit, upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public debt-limit legislation. The Senate has no comparable procedure; if it chooses to consider a House-passed joint resolution, it does so under the regular legislative process.

The House also may develop and consider debt-limit legislation without resorting to the Gephardt rule, either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. Of the 42 public-debt limit changes enacted into law during the period 1980 to the present, 28 were enacted without resorting to the Gephardt rule.

In 11 of the 29 years since the Gephardt rule was established, the rule did not
apply, due to its suspension or repeal by the House (calendar years 1988, 1990-1991, 1994-1997, and 1999-2002). In most cases, the House suspended the rule because legislation changing the statutory limit was not necessary; at the time, the existing public debt limit was expected to be sufficient.

During the remaining 18 years, when the rule was in effect, the House originated
19 joint resolutions under this procedure; 14 were signed into law. The first seven
of these 18 joint resolutions were generated under the Gephardt rule in its original form. The rule was modified in 1983; the current rule is substantively the same as the 1983 form of the rule. The subsequent 12 joint resolutions were generated under this modified language. In three years (calendar years 1998, 2004, and 2006), the House and Senate did not agree to a conference report on the budget resolution and therefore the automatic engrossment process under the Gephardt rule was not utilized.

http://congressionalresearch.com/RL31913/document.php

[yurbud]

7. good find

[dkf]

4. In the very beginning congress voted on EACH bond issue.

The debt ceiling was actually a short cut.

[Igel]

6. In prniciple you vote a budget based on revenue projections.

But if there's a hitch in the revenue then you fall short.

It's like my household budget. I have a budget. But if something happened (some hit to my paycheck for some reason, e.g., hours were cut) then I'd have "authorized" expenses but no funding source except credit.


Alternatively, I have a budget and self-imposed credit limit but some emergency comes up. For me, car repairs, major appliance bites the big one. For Congress--a war. A bridge collapses. They need money to help starving Armenians. You vote on the emergency funding without worrying about the details--something a debt ceiling can handle.

At the time the only option used to be to have the executive curtail spending or vote for a bond issue/increase debt ceiling (if it's that close).

By having a debt limit you don't need to approve each and every bond issue.


Somewhere along the way "authorization" came to be interpreted as or legislated to entail "required to spend." Probably because some president decided that Congress may have authorized money for something but he didn't like it, approve of it, and wasn't about to do what they wanted.

Yet every year some departments don't spend their full allocation, so that can't be applied to exactingly and there has to be some wiggle room.

[yurbud]

9. I think that principle went out the window in the Great Depression

[gopiscrap]

8. Was wondering that myself