Speaker Boehner Off-Base on Debt Increases

September 13, 2013 at 10:46 am

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) contends that linking an increase in the debt limit to budget deals is routine.  In fact, such linkage is the exception — not the rule.

In a fact sheet, Boehner mentions seven debt-limit increases during the Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton years that included other budget-related measures.  Boehner fails to say, however, that since President Reagan was inaugurated, Congress has enacted 45 different pieces of legislation raising the debt limit.  The vast majority of them were not connected to major budget deals.

Moreover, most of Boehner’s examples undercut his argument for linking a debt-limit increase to a deficit-reduction agreement:

  • Two of the examples — the 1985 and 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings laws — proved largely ineffective for various reasons.   Those laws achieved very little real deficit reduction.  (See Appendix A here.)
  • Two other bills on the Speaker’s list — debt-ceiling increases in 1989 and 1996 — reduced spending minimally or actually increased the deficit.
  • Republicans strongly opposed two more of the laws — the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 — because they raised taxes.  Almost three-quarters of House Republicans voted against the 1990 legislation, and House and Senate Republicans unanimously opposed the 1993 law.

In only one instance that the Speaker mentioned — the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 — have Republicans supported a debt-ceiling increase that included significant, effective deficit reduction.  And even in that case, later Congresses undid much of the spending cuts and all of the long-term deficit reduction by abandoning the discretionary caps for 2001 and 2002 and by enacting tax cuts in 2001, in violation of the pay-as-you-go rules included in the BBA of 1997.

So, despite what the Speaker argues, linking budget deals to debt limit legislation is not routine.

The larger point is that policymakers shouldn’t play politics with the debt limit, risking a catastrophic default.  Instead, they should enact clean legislation that provides the needed increase in the debt limit and, separately, negotiate a balanced deficit-reduction package.

Print Friendly

More About Richard Kogan

Richard Kogan

Richard Kogan rejoined the Center in May 2011 after having served as a Senior Adviser at the Office of Management and Budget since January 2009. During his second tour at the Center, from 2001 to 2009, he served as a Senior Fellow specializing in federal budget issues, including aggregate spending, revenues, surpluses and deficits, and debt. Kogan is also an expert in the congressional and executive budget processes and budget accounting concepts.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

1 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Jay Stokes #
    1

    I appreciate the summary. As a strong supporter of Obama, I am trying to review the history of debt limit battles.

    To me, the issue is whether the opposing parties have used the issue for leverage or not. It does seem like it has happened, though, as you say, not very often. To say that the resulting laws were not very good does not change the fact that it was used as leverage.

    What does seem unique is that they are trying to use the debt to attack the ACA, not directly linked to deficits. So linking it to budget battles may have some historical precedent, but linking it to the ACA does not.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




four × = 12

 characters available