Congratulations, America, you’ve hit the debt ceiling again!
Starting Friday, the government will need to use emergency measures to keep paying its bills, as a congressional measure that suspended the legal borrowing limit expires Feb. 7. But that won’t hold the country over for very long, and we’ll start running the risk of default within about three weeks’ time.
Why risk putting America’s creditworthiness on the line again, just when the economy is beginning to pick up some steam? Because Republicans have decided once more that they want something—anything—in return for raising the country’s legal borrowing limit.
What? Well, they’re not entirely sure. In fact, House Republicans left town on Thursday without even making up their minds.
The purported rationale for negotiating over the debt ceiling is that it’s a useful check on runaway government spending. House GOP Leader Eric Cantor said so himself last weekend.
“I’m hopeful that the president and the Senate will work with us in the House to actually do what has typically been done with debt ceilings, which is making some progress toward addressing the spending problem in Washington, making some progress toward trying to grow the economy around the debt ceiling,” he said Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation.
But if the end goal is lower spending and greater fiscal responsibilty, the House GOP’s latest search for a debt-ceiling bargaining chip suggests otherwise.
One early Republican idea was to tie the debt ceiling to repealing Obamacare’s “risk corridor” payments to health insurers—a safety valve in case not enough young, healthy people sign up, which the GOP has dubbed an “insurance company bailout.” Then the Congressional Budget Office pointed out the risk corridors will actually save the government $8 billion between 2015 and 2017, since insurers have to pay into the program as well. So repealing them, as the GOP proposed, would actually increase the deficit.
Republicans went back to the drawing board and came up with another idea: Let’s insist that the debt ceiling be tied to reversing military pension cuts that Congress put into effect by a wide, bipartisan margin just a few weeks earlier. Since nobody wants to look like they’re hurting veterans, the thinking goes, the proposal will be hard for Democrats to dismiss out of hand.
But it turns out that reversing cuts runs into that same pesky logic problem: It would increase spending to the tune of $6 billion over the next 10 years. In fact, the whole reason Republican leaders had approved the cuts in the first place was that they made “real changes to these autopilot programs that are the real drivers of our debt,” as Rep. Paul Ryan declared in December.
Pressed on the issue, the House GOP quickly assured reporters that they would offset the reversal of the military pension cuts, then they scrambled to find a pay-for. Politico reported that what they came up with on Thursday was an unrelated reform measure called “pension smoothing,” which conveniently saves exactly $6 billion. (Never mind that Senate Democrats have proposed using the same pension-smoothing offset to pay for unemployment benefits, effectively pitting the jobless against military vets.)









