Is there a solution to the debt ceiling? A political, 11-dimensional chess way of maneuvering the angry Tea Partiers, disappointed progressives, and confused independents?
Why yes, yes there is. And it isn't really too difficult. Surprised nobody thought of it before.
The last debt ceiling resolution to hit the floor (in all senses of the word) was for $2.406 Trillion (HR1954). This little gem had a cleverly-worded way of saying "we need to borrow some more".
The Congress finds that the President's budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt limit of $2,406,000,000,000.
Funny way of putting it, isn't it? That's because the President's next budget doesn't need $2.406 Trillion. The President's budget for FY2012 calls for a deficit of $1.1 Trillion. Of course, this budget is DOA, and is far inferior to the Progressive Caucus Budget. But I digress...
The difference between debt ceiling and debt
Raising the debt ceiling is one of the few acts of government that doesn't actually change the amount of debt we have. Just like getting a higher limit on your credit card doesn't actually change the amount you owe on your credit card. You have to actually spend the money before your debt increases. So the problem we should be looking at is actually...
"When did we spend this money?"
The answer, if you recall, was in April, when we narrowly averted a government shutdown and agreed on a continuing resolution, with some sharp cuts. Yet it was only a short period of time later that we officially hit the deficit cap.
See, much of the money we need to borrow, which is equivalent to the around $2.406 Trillion minus the $1.1 Trillion called for in FY2012, or $1.3 Trillion, is actually for the spending both parties agreed to back in April.
So how do you vote FOR spending, but then try to hold Medicare hostage for the exact same spending? Answer - you don't.
So what do we do?
If a debt ceiling increase that was limited JUST to the increase needed to fund the existing (GOP-approved) spending plan were introduced, the majority of Congresspersons that voted for the spending plan would have to vote for the debt increase it requires. Otherwise, it would be bald-faced political gamesmanship - you would have voted to spend the money, then used that spending as an excuse to cut Medicare. At least, that's what the tv ads would say. I know I'd chip in $20 to run those ads.
Of course, this doesn't solve the problem beyond this current budget. The debt ceiling would run out at the same time the authorization for spending would run out, but it does mean that the debt ceiling negotiation would take place along with the budget negotiations, which cuts the number of grandstanding chances the Republican party has to play with.
It would also make Republicans look like "compromisers" and most low-information Tea Partiers wouldn't really comprehend why they didn't bring home the cuts that were promised, so that's a secondary benefit to boot.
Granted, there is a monkeywrench in the works: "automatic spending" that doesn't require appropriations on SS and Medicare would "try" to continue past this Fiscal Year in absence of a 2012 Budget/Debt Ceiling Deal, but would hit the deficit cap. But if that were the case, we would have a "shutdown" type situation where all checks would freeze as a whole (all appropriations would have run out as well), making the impact more salient to voters. In the end, ensuring that people understand what a complete cut to government spending actually feels like (for a very short period of time) would only help people understand the importance of things like SS and Medicare.