The Debt Ceiling, Essay Example

The debt ceiling debate that took place in Washington D.C. in recent months was an entirely unprecedented situation. Prompted largely by a small group of constituents to which House Speaker John Boehner and a few other Republican politicians were beholden, the discussions about the debt ceiling turned into a virtual circus. Never before in the history of the debt ceiling were any sorts of political games played (Indiviglio).  In the simplest of terms, the debt ceiling is simply an accounting function. It is based on the United States being able to make food on debts and financial obligations that have already been approved by the government. It has no connection to future spending, nor does it have any real connection to actual government spending (Smith). There were two sides to this recent situation: the Republicans who control the House of Representatives decided to stop President Obama from raising the Debt Ceiling until he agreed to spending cuts that they wanted. The Democrats pointed out that the Debt Ceiling had never before been used this way, and that if it was not raised, the United States economy could collapse. I believe the evidence supports the Democrat’s position.

Decisions made by Congress about how and where to spend money are made through various legislative processes. Once these spending decisions are made, the debt ceiling is determined as the figure at which these obligations can be met. First put into place in 1917, the debt ceiling is quite literally just the figure that represents how much money Congress has already decided to spend. In the past, when spending decisions changed, for whatever reason (unforeseen military actions, for example), the debt ceiling was raised as a matter of course. Again, it simply represented the amount of money Congress had already agreed to spend (Smith). Never before in the nearly hundred years it has been in place has it ever been used as a political football, as a means of one party to hold the United States economy hostage in the manner in which it was in the summer of 2011. In an entirely unprecedented series of maneuvers, a small but influential group of political constituents pressured certain members of Congress to use the debt ceiling issue as a means of forcing President Obama to accede to their financial demands (Indiviglio).

That is what makes the current issues about the debt ceiling, and the manner in which it became a virtual game of “chicken” between the Congress and the President so utterly out of character. To better understand the nature of the situation, it may help to take a closer look at some of the players involved. As many are aware, a movement that labeled itself the “Tea Party” (as a reference to the Boston Tea Party that fought British taxation two centuries ago) came together in the wake of President Obama’s election. Though the members of the Tea Party claim that their sole interest lies in reducing government spending, it does seem a bit odd that no such movement formed when President George W. Bush raised the United States deficit by trillions of dollars during his time in office. When he moved into the White House, President Bush inherited a thriving economy, and a budgetary surplus of billions of dollars from the Clinton administration (Smith). These surpluses were predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to last into the foreseeable future. It seems almost impossible to believe that Bush was able to run up such enormous deficits while in office; beyond that, he lowered the top tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans to 32%, while at the same time instigating two occupations of Middle Eastern nations that show no sign of ever ending. These occupations have already cost the United States trillions of dollars, and with no indication that they will be ending for decades to come, it is impossible to calculate how many more trillions of dollars will be spent to continue those occupations (Smith & Williamson).

While Bush was in office, and running up the nation’s debt to unprecedented levels, no “Tea Party” was formed to combat government spending. In fact, Bush was supported wholeheartedly by the Republicans, who were happy to reelect him for a second term so he could continue to spend untold trillions of dollars, ensuring that the United States would be in debt for decades to come, rather than running a budgetary surplus as had been done in the final years of the Clinton Presidency. It is difficult for any objective observer not to question the motives of many of the “Tea Partiers,” who are largely white, middle-aged, and middle class. Despite the fact that President Obama actually lowered taxes on the middle class, while also allowing the “Bush Tax Cuts” to remain in place for several more years, he was labeled by the Republicans as someone who wanted raise taxes and increase government spending (Smith & Williamson).

In the most cynical fashion, the Republicans whipped the Tea Partiers into a frenzy, insisting that it was President Obama who was responsible for the incredibly high levels of government debt, despite the fact that he had inherited the bulk of the debt from the Bush administration. While it is true that President Obama did take some actions that added to the debt, most of these actions had short-term effects, such as the “bailout” of several large financial firms, whereas President Bush’s spending had virtually permanent effects, as much of it was tied to such things as the Middle East occupations, and spending on Medicare-related drug programs(this last decision was made shortly before his reelection; some saw it as a means of “buying” the votes of the elderly, who relied on Medicaid) (Smith & Williamson).

By refusing to raise the debt ceiling –which would have caused the first United States default in history- the Republicans forced President Obama to give up on raising the top 4tax rate. In addition, the republicans demanded an agreement to cut spending by several trillion dollars over the next ten years. With no new revenue coming in from an increase in the top tax rate, and an insistence on cutting spending, it will once again be the middle class that suffers. Spending cuts will be made to programs like Social Security and Medicare, while the wealthiest of the wealthy will continue to enjoythe lowest tax rates most of them have ever paid.

As long as the Republicans are leading the argument about the U.S. economy, the situation shows no signs of improving, and it seems that the middle class will continue to be squeezed for more and more taxes, while at the same time losing more and more government benefits that they have paid for through their taxes (smith & Williamson). The fact that the Republicans were willing to bring the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse just so they could get cuts to programs that help the poorest of the poor shows how dangerous their tactics are. At some point, this system will collapse, because it is impossible to continue asking the least-wealthy Americans to foot the bills for expensive wars and other government programs. We can only hope that some politicians will be elected who can and will have the courage to change the system before it is too late.