Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Dec 12, 2025 8:58 PM

What just happened?

In two tweets posted earlier today,President Trump attacked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan for not tying an increase in the debt limit to a recent Veterans Affairs bill that passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. (The bill likely would have been delayed, though, if it had been tied tothe debt limit.)

Congress must vote on whether to raise America’s borrowing limit and keep the government funded within the next month. Failure to do so could lead to a government shutdown. President Trump said on Tuesday he was willing to shut down the government to get funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

What is the debt limit or debt ceiling?

In most years the federal government brings in less revenue than it spends. To cover this difference, the Treasury Department has to issue government bonds which increases the national debt. The debt limit is legislative restriction on the total amount of national debt the Treasury is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations.

What is the current debt limit?

The current statutory limit on total debt issued by the Treasury is$19.809 trillion.

Shouldn’t we want Congress to refuses to raise the debt ceiling since it will lower our national debt?

The debt ceiling does not lower the national debt. The legal obligation to pay the debt has already been incurred by the government so the money is already owed. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling merely prevents the Treasury Department from borrowing money to pay the government’s bills.

When will the government run out of money to pay its bills?

The current estimate is October 2, 2017.

What happens when the government doesn’t have money to pay its bills?

As Brad Plumer explains, “The most straightforward scenario is that the puter systems would keep making payments until its checks started bouncing. And its hard to predict in advance who would get stiffed.”

Every day the Treasury Department receives more than 2 million invoices from various agencies. The Department of Labor might say, for example, that it owes a contractor $1 million to fix up a building in Denver. The puters make sure the figures are correct and then authorize the payment. This is all done automatically, dozens of times per second.

According to the Treasury Department’s inspector general, puters are designed to “make each payment in the order es due.” So if the money isn’t there, the defaults could be random.

What happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and Treasury can’t pay the government’s bill?

The result is that the government will default on its payments, that is, people owned money by government stop getting paid. Each month the government only brings in about 80 percent of the revenues needed to pay the bills. Some people would get paid but others would not, which could cause Americans and the rest of the world to wonder if the U.S. is serious about meeting its financial obligations. That could precipitate a global financial crisis

If the consequences are so dire, why doesn’t Congress just raise the debt ceiling already?

In a word, politics. As Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey of AEI note, Congresses run by both parties have used the borrowing limit as political leverage with a president. All told, congressional Democrats have been responsible for 60 percent of the increases when the debt limit was raised alongside other legislative items. Republicans were responsible for 15 percent. The remaining 25 percent occurred during divided Congresses. Of the Democratic dirties, six occurred when Democrats also controlled the White House, and 10 occurred when a Republican controlled the White House. For Republicans, all four occurred while a Democrat held the presidency.

Why do we even have a debt ceiling?

The United States has had some sort of legislative restriction on debt since 1917. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it and it makes little sense for Congress to separately authorize borrowing for spending that Congress has already approved. While many economists and politicians have suggested eliminating the debt limit requirement, no serious proposal to remove it is being considered. It likely won’t be as long as it can be used as a political tool.

Will we actually default on our debt?

Probably not. McConnell said on Monday,”There is zero chance—no chance—we won’t raise the debt ceiling.” Congress and the President will e to some agreement. Both the spending and debt ceiling bills can pass the Republican-led House of Representatives by a simple majority vote, but will need 60 votes to pass the Senate. Republicans only hold 52 of 100 seats, so they will need at least 8 Democratic Senators to support the measure.

Back in 1979, the government inadvertently defaulted on about $122 million worth of Treasury bills, and while the error was quickly fixed, the incident raised the nation’s borrowing costs by about 0.6 percent, or $12 billion. Most members of Congress recognize that if a minor default could have such devastating consequences, the affect of a real default could be catastrophic.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Lord Acton and the Power of the Historian
Looking through my back stacks of periodicals the other day I ran across a review in Books & Culture by David Bebbington, “Macaulay in the Dock,” of a recent biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The essay takes its point of departure in Lord Acton’s characterization of Macaulay as “one of the greatest of all writers and masters, although I think him utterly base, contemptible and odious.” As Bebbington writes, “Acton, a towering intellectual of the later 19th century, was at...
Italy’s Tax Man Takes Aim at the Vatican
Kishore Jayabalan, the Acton Institute’s Rome office director, was interviewed by the Zenit news agency in an article titled, “Is Taxing the Church a Real Solution for Italy?” In the article, Jayabalan discusses the history of the Italian state and its imposition of property taxes on the Roman Catholic Church’s land holdings, residences and non-profit businesses. Sometimes in the past, particularly under Napoleonic rule and before the Lateran Pacts, the institution of property tax was often a subject of state...
When Christianity Was Still Friendly With Science and Art
Phillip Long is a professor of Bible and Biblical Languages at Grace Bible College in Grand Rapids, Michigan and blogs over at Reading Acts. Phil does not normally review this kind of book, but was drawn to it due to Abraham Kuyper’s popularity and his contribution to worldview issues today. Long shares some good observations and this book and its relevance for Christianity today, particularly those with an aversion to the study of science and the pursuit of a career...
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Should virtue be a consideration in judicial decisionmaking? Indiana Law Professor R. George Wright makes an intriguing argument for why the four cardinal virtues could be useful in interpreting constitutional cases: Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article mends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or...
Redistributing Other People’s Income Is Not the Way to Help the Poor
True help for the poor recognizes that they are people, says J. E. Dyer, not e-levels in a “redistribution” equation. After many years, we have learned what happens when we seek to “redistribute” e or wealth. The goal of “redistribution” es more important than actually helping the poor. The abstract idea of removing e or wealth from some and transferring it to others trumps everything else. Seeking to “redistribute” e or wealth is not, in fact, a very good method...
How to Love Liberty More Than a Libertarian Economist
I have a deep and abiding love for liberty—which is why I find myself so often in disagreement with libertarians. Libertarians love liberty too, of course, but they tend to love liberty a bit differently. I love liberty in an earthy, elemental way. I love liberty because I need it—like I need air and food—for human flourishing. In contrast, the libertarians I’ve encountered tend to love liberty primarily as an abstraction. Indeed, the most ideologically consistent libertarians I know seem...
How to Steal a Bike in New York City
Edmund Burke didn’t really say it, but it still rings true: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In a test of this maxim, filmmaker Casey Neistat tries to steal his own bike in several locations around New York City and finds that most people do nothing about it—even when it’s done right in front of a police station. I recently spent a couple of days conducting a bike theft experiment, which...
Is Work a Curse?
Is work a curse, a result of mankind’s fall from grace? Not according to the Book of Genesis. As Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, explains, what Adam was called to do in the garden is what we are still called to do in our work today: Humanity was created by God to cultivate and keep God’s creation, which included developing it and protecting it. You see, we were created to be stewards of...
Obamacare’s Religious Rubes
The White House has a plan to mobilize prayer vigils in front of the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare. It was reported that the administration met with leaders at non-profit organizations and religious officials who support the new health care law. The court takes up the constitutional test of the health care mandate in a couple of weeks. The mandate has now been challenged in 26 states. Cue the same stale big government religious prophets who confuse statism and...
Let’s Change Hearts and Minds (and Laws, Too)
Few clichés are so widespread within the evangelical subculture, says Matthew Lee Anderson, as the notion that our witness must be one of “changing hearts and minds.” In careful hands, the idea is at best ambiguous. At worst it reinforces the sort of interior-oriented individualism that allows for and perpetuates a blissful naivete about how institutions and structures shape our dispositions and thoughts. In less than careful hands, the phrase drives a wedge between law and culture by attempting to...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved