Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Jan 29, 2026 12:24 AM

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
There’s No Size or Space in Subsidiarity
When thinking and talking about principle of subsidiarity I’ve tended to resort to using metaphors of size and space (i.e.,nothing should be done by a higher orlargerorganization which can be done as well by a smalleror lower organization). But philosopher Brandon Watson explains why that is not really what subsidiarity is all about: The subsidiarity principle is often paired with the principle of solidarity, and there is a real connection between the two. Solidarity is the active sense of responsibility...
On Call in Culture on a Normal Day
I love the scene in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, where it portrays John Nash finding his truly original idea. He isn’t in a library, classroom or lab. No, he is out with his friends in a bar, trying to figure out how to get a group of women to pay attention to him and his buddies. Out of that problem, he discovered a principle that could be applied to situations of much more significance and went on to continue...
How Using Party Balloons Today Could Affect Healthcare Costs Tomorrow
Because you had party balloons at your 7-year-old’s birthday party, you many not be able to get a MRI scan by the time your 70. At least that is the conclusion of some scientists who say the world supply of helium, which is essential in research and medicine, is being squandered because we are using the gas for party balloons: “It costs £30,000 ($47,568) a day to operate our neutron beams, but for three days we had no helium to...
What Methodism Teaches us about Poverty
We all know the promises government has made over the years about how certain programs and initiatives would eradicate poverty. But perhaps nothing rivals the Methodist movement in terms of effectively stamping out poverty in England. Charles Edward White and Bobby Butler’s essay “John Wesley’s Church Planting Movement: Discipleship that Transformed a Nation and Changed the World” is a splendid overview of Methodism’s impact on English society, especially as it relates to the middle class explosion. People of faith understand...
Celebrate Spring with AU Online!
Spring is almost here! In celebration of my favorite season, I invite you to visit the new and improved AU Online website. There, you’ll find information about the spring 2012 course offerings and enjoy free access to Acton’s core curriculum, our four part foundational series. Our first live session, Private Charity: A Practitioner’s View, will take place March 27 and feature the highly rated Acton lecturer Rudy Carrasco speaking from his years of experience on the front lines of urban...
An Indian Perspective on Business as Mission
As I mentioned in my previous post, the Business as Mission (BAM) model has e a global phenomenon. As more Christians embrace BAM it is not only changing the lives of individual Christians but is helping to change, as Daniel Devadatta explains, the culture of business in India: When Christian business persons begin to sense their calling, when they embrace this and begin to envision their enterprise from this perspective, they will begin to see the significant role they play...
The Mission of Business
Over the past decade the model of Business as Mission (BAM) has grown into a globally influential movement. As Christianity Today wrote in 2007, the phenomenon has many labels: “kingdom business,” panies,” “for-profit missions,” “marketplace missions,” and “Great panies,” to name a few. But as Swedish business consultant Mats Tunehag notes, Business as Mission is not a new discovery—it is a rediscovery of Biblical truths and practices. Many Evangelicals often put an emphasis on the Great Commission, but sometimes make...
Video: Michael Matheson Miller on PovertyCure
Michael Matheson Miller, Acton’s Director of Media, recently made an appearance on NPO Showcase, munity access show here in the Grand Rapids area, to discuss the PovertyCure initiative. The full 15 minute interview is available for viewing below: ...
Audio: Miller on Kony 2012 & HHS Mandates
Acton’s Director of Media Michael Matheson Miller joined host Dave Jaconette this morning on WJRW Radio in Grand Rapids, Michigan for an interview touching on a number of subjects including 3rd world poverty, Kony 2012, entrepreneurship in the developing world, and even a discussion of the HHS mandate issue. The interview lasts about 20 minutes; Listen via the audio player below: [audio: ...
It is Unconstitutional for Laws to be Based on Religiously Influenced Moral Reasons?
Is it unconstitutional for laws to be based on their supporters’ religiously founded moral beliefs? While most of us—at least most readers of this blog—would consider such a question to be absurd, some people apparently think it should be answered in the affirmative. Fortunately, legal scholar Eugene Volokh has provided a brilliant rebuttal which explains why “it would be an outrageous discrimination against religious believers to have such a constitutional rule”: My most recent brush with the argument happened with...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved