Skip to footer

Debt ceiling 101: eight questions about the latest round

Congress has until the end of February to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, or the country risks going into default. We’ve seen this movie many times in recent years: Republicans demand concessions, President Obama usually refuses, and the debt ceiling is raised anyway.

The last increase came on Oct. 17, 2013, when the debt ceiling was suspended until Feb. 7, 2014. On that day, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said he could use “extraordinary measures” to push that deadline to Feb. 27.

How is this time different from the previous rounds of debt ceiling politics? Here’s a guide, plus the context.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File
A woman looks at the US Capitol in Washington on New Year's Eve, 2013. Congress has until the end of the month to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the prospect of the country going into default.

1. How is this time different?

The politics have changed. Republicans were blamed for the government shutdown last October, which was triggered by an effort to defund Obamacare. Although that wasn’t debt ceiling politics, the GOP would be blamed now if Congress failed to raise the debt limit. A CNN/ORC International poll released Feb. 3 found that 54 percent of Americans would blame Republicans if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, while 29 percent would blame the president. Twelve percent would blame both sides.

Republicans know that their leverage is limited and that the public is tired of Washington dysfunction. But some Republicans still want to make a point about issues they care about by linking them to an increase in the debt ceiling. For a while, Republicans wanted to link presidential approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline with an increase in the debt ceiling. Another target was a repeal of “risk corridors” – one of the risk mitigation measures in Obamacare that opponents call a “bailout” of insurance companies. Both strategies fell by the wayside.

1 of 8
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.