Comments ( add 5) So in what other ways do these budgetary structures lead to situations like the debt ceiling and the debates about it? Any thoughts? Response one pol-06 Recently, the U.S. experienced a government shutdown. Although it was for only a short period of time, the shutdown resulted in consequential disruptions of key services and facility closures, as well the temporary furlough of countless Federal Government employees.  The government shutdown was the result of a political impasse in Congress, where the Republican majority did not have sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to garner the 60 votes required to pass the budget resolution.  It passed the House of Representatives with the required votes. Senate Republicans and Democrats reached a probable compromise related to defense spending, border protection spending and protection for Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) aliens, with the Republicans focused on the two former and the Democrats focused on the latter. Initially, a bi-partisan Senate agreement was struck, but the President rejected the deal causing the political parties to return to impasse.  In this instance, Congress had reached a compromise, but the Executive Branch, specifically the President, chose not to accept the compromise causing the deal to collapse, resulting in the shutdown.  Within 72 hours following the shutdown, another compromise was struck to pass a continuing spending resolution to temporarily fund the Federal Government until February 8, 2018, upon which another vote would be required.  Partisan politics hard-lines, or hyper-partisanship, significantly reduce paths to compromise and it is the American people who suffer in the end.  Interestingly, however, partisan political positions can reverse over time due to changing circumstances.  In 2011 and 2013 during the Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats wanted to raise the U.S. debt ceiling to preclude the national debt from surpassing the limit set by law.  When the national debt reaches the debt ceiling, and when expenses exceed revenues, the U.S. Treasury cannot increase its borrowing; it may only fund expense for which there is sufficient available cash. 1 The Republicans, wishing to reduce government spending, and who also held the majority in Congress, opposed increasing the debt ceiling to further their own political agenda to cut government spending. 2 In 2013, Republicans used their vote for the debt ceiling to negotiate entitlement reform impacting the Affordable Care Act 3. President Obama responded by saying that he is not going to “negotiate on jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States.”2 The impasse resulted in a lapse in funding and a government shutdown.  Ultimately, Republicans succeeded in reducing government spending, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to cripple the Affordable Care Act. 2 Fast forward to 2018, and the tables are turned.  With Republicans in control of both the White House a ...

1. Comments ( add 5) So in what other ways do these budgetary
structures lead to situations like the debt ceiling and the debates
about it? Any thoughts?
Response one pol-06
Recently, the U.S. experienced a government shutdown.
Although it was for only a short period of time, the shutdown
resulted in consequential disruptions of key services and facility
closures, as well the temporary furlough of countless Federal
Government employees. The government shutdown was the
result of a political impasse in Congress, where the Republican
majority did not have sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to
garner the 60 votes required to pass the budget resolution. It
passed the House of Representatives with the required votes.
Senate Republicans and Democrats reached a probable
compromise related to defense spending, border protection
spending and protection for Deferred Action for Child Arrivals
(DACA) aliens, with the Republicans focused on the two former
and the Democrats focused on the latter. Initially, a bi-partisan
Senate agreement was struck, but the President rejected the deal
causing the political parties to return to impasse. In this
instance, Congress had reached a compromise, but the Executive
Branch, specifically the President, chose not to accept the
compromise causing the deal to collapse, resulting in the
shutdown. Within 72 hours following the shutdown, another
compromise was struck to pass a continuing spending resolution
to temporarily fund the Federal Government until February 8,
2018, upon which another vote would be required. Partisan
politics hard-lines, or hyper-partisanship, significantly reduce
paths to compromise and it is the American people who suffer
in the end.
Interestingly, however, partisan political positions can reverse
over time due to changing circumstances. In 2011 and 2013
during the Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats
wanted to raise the U.S. debt ceiling to preclude the national

2. debt from surpassing the limit set by law. When the national
debt reaches the debt ceiling, and when expenses exceed
revenues, the U.S. Treasury cannot increase its borrowing; it
may only fund expense for which there is sufficient available
cash. 1 The Republicans, wishing to reduce government
spending, and who also held the majority in Congress, opposed
increasing the debt ceiling to further their own political agenda
to cut government spending. 2 In 2013, Republicans used their
vote for the debt ceiling to negotiate entitlement reform
impacting the Affordable Care Act 3. President Obama
responded by saying that he is not going to “negotiate on
jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States.”2 The
impasse resulted in a lapse in funding and a government
shutdown. Ultimately, Republicans succeeded in reducing
government spending, but they were unsuccessful in their
attempts to cripple the Affordable Care Act. 2
Fast forward to 2018, and the tables are turned. With
Republicans in control of both the White House and Congress,
the Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling due to a
forthcoming shortfall in revenue, partially due to Republican
legislation to reduce taxes. The Democrats, who oppose the
new tax law but were powerless to stop it, now believe they
have leverage by refusing to vote to raise the debt ceiling
again. In doing so, they would force a crisis where Republican
spending on defense and border security would be jeopardized.
The vote also gives the Democrats leverage in their negotiations
to further their own agenda items such as DACA and protection
of other social programs.
The Congressional budget process requires responsible
assessment of resource needs, including the cost of paying
interest, and when possible, principle on the national debt, and
detailed forecasts of potential revenues. A fiscally responsible
government should understand that it is untenable to have
expenditures continually exceed revenues, requiring additional
borrowing and increases to the national debt. Eventually, the
budget deficit costs will drive the debt to a level that is

3. unsustainable and unrecoverable. Such a significant portion of
revenues will be required to pay interests on the debt that less
and less money will be available for defense, government
agencies, social support programs and coverage of Federal
bonds and securities.
By using the debt ceiling and the threat of government
shutdowns as bargaining chips for their own partisan politics,
the White House and Congress play a dangerous game gambling
with the welfare of the American people. 2
To prevent Congress from using the debt ceiling as a chip for
their negotiations, Josh Hazan offers one alternative; “when
Congress votes to appropriate funds, the debt ceiling should
automatically rise to meet a shortfall if one exists. If Congress
does not wish to increase the debt, it must choose to either
increase revenues or decrease expenditures elsewhere to offset
the new appropriations.” 3
If Congress cannot maintain sufficient discipline to appropriate
funding within available streams of government revenue,
additional measures must be considered to safeguard American
solvency. Balancing fiscal budgets must become the new
standard of ethical governance.
1. Mindy R. Levit, Clinton T. Brass Thomas J. Nicola Dawn
Nuschler 2013. “Reaching the Debt Limit: Background and
Potential Effects on Government Operations” Congressional
Research Service. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/May/Downloads/CRS-Memorandum-R41633.pdf
(6 Feb, 2018)
2. Ahuja, Gurwin. (2013) The Debt-Ceiling Crisis Why It
Matters to Millennials. Center for American Progress. Retrieved
from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/MillennialDebtCeiling-5.pdf (6 Feb,
2018)
3. HAZAN, JOSH. “Unconstitutional Debt Ceilings”. Retrieved
from
https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/172/unconstitutional-

4. debt-ceilings/pdf (6 Feb, 2018)
4. Hinch, Phillips. 2012. "Facing the Fiscal Cliff." Journal of
Financial Planning 25 (8): 30-31. https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1033050859?accountid=8289.
5. Zigmond, Jessica. 2013. "New Budget Battle Erupts." Modern
Healthcare 43 (37): 4. https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1433853852?accountid=8289.
Response two pol-06
I heard on the news, Tuesday, February 6, 2018, that the house
voted to “kick the can down that budgetary road” again until
March 23 to give themselves more time to debate the merits of
raising the debt ceiling…again. Oi vey, again and again we go
through this. I was a single mom and had to raise six children
on a very slim budget and had to work three and four jobs many
times to put food on the table. But I had to depend on myself.
And budget my money. Even now, although my children are all
adults, I still have to budget my money. Congress uses other
peoples’ money (that they tax away from us) or they just print
more money and can’t seem to trim the fat by even five
percent. Or they say, let’s use Keynesian economics and spend
our way out of debt. How much sense does that make? That
would be like me using credit cards to pay for things while I
was raising my children. I would never have gotten out of
debt.
In 2011, there was a “balanced budget amendment”[1] voted on
whereby sixty-two percent of Congress voted for passage of the
amendment. Those who voted for this proposed amendment
included “twenty-five Democrats and all but four
Republicans.”[2] The author of the article posits that the
reasons why it was voted down were three provisions in it,
including government shutdowns, Federal Reserve “hanky
panky” (my words), and one key provision that was totally
unacceptable. Eventually, after much work, it became a much
better bill.[3] It still did not pass.
As of 2012, the nation debt was twice as large than the four
years prior, and went to $15.2 trillion. By statute there is

5. national debt ceiling.[4] But that did not seem to matter to
those members of congress who ran for office on lowering the
debt. Once they got voted into office, they gave every excuse
in the world why they needed to raise the debt ceiling. Ceiling
means that you cannot go any higher.
In the fall of 2013, congress was experiencing “budget
gridlock.”[5] Apparently, this had been going on since July of
that year. The author of this article (who by the way is
anonymous which tells me that they did not have the intestinal
fortitude to put their name on the article), states that, congress
is up to its old tricks of continuing resolutions and debt
ceilings. Further, that we should just get used to this shell game
and become accustomed to CR’s as the new “business as usual”
budget model.[6]
In November of 2015, President Obama signed into law the
suspension of the nation’s debt limit which then allowed the
borrowing of $1.5 trillion in one fell swoop. The debt at that
time was $18.15 trillion. Additionally, ending the spending
caps of 2011, meant much more debt looms large in the future
and undoes “one of the only successful fiscal restraint
mechanisms in a generation.”[7]
So how did Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress under
Bill Clinton balance the budget? They came up with the
“Contract with America,”[8] a reform agenda. This was
spearheaded by Newt Gingrich, who assumed the post of
Speaker of the House (the first Republican Speaker of the House
of Representatives in forty years).[9] So unusual was this
contract, that the Republicans running for office that year made
it part of their campaigns for public office. In less than one
hundred days, that cadre of Republican congressmen passed
more legislation that had not been seen since FDR’s New Deal.
There were 367 Republicans who signed the contract on the
steps of the Capitol (I watched the news when they did this) on
September 27, 1994. They publicly pledged: "If we break this
Contract, throw us out."[10] There were ten items in the
contract and it contained a balanced budget (what a novel idea),

6. “environmental regulations and Medicare and Medicaid
reforms.”[11] Then based on it, ran their campaigns, as did
Senatorial candidates, state candidates and even some local
races.[12]
The size of the federal government had become bloated and
voters were tired of it. At the time this piece was written, in
1995, the size of the “permanent staff” on Capitol Hill was
approximately 20,000. So, what Gingrich did was draw
attention to what the contract said by being specific and
detailed. Instead of saying that we are going to cut taxes, he
explained how. How effective was this? Nine of the ten items
were passed in the first one hundred days. And on their first day
they passed nine major reforms. The only major item that did
not pass was a constitutional amendment on term limits (too
bad).[13]
That is why I keep harping on those who to Washington and say
this is too hard to get anything done and you can’t do this and
you can’t do that. Really? Tell that to Newt Gingrich. What is
going to happen if congress does not mend its ways?
Davidson has it correct when he says, “excessive amounts of
deficit spending today mean larger financial burdens for the
next generation…Spending on entitlement programs, such as
social security and medicare, absorbs an ever-increasing
proportion of federal dollars, which then are unavailable for
other important social, domestic, or security needs. Universal
health care is another redistributive issue because of concern
over how to finance it and who would pay the program’s cost,
estimated to be $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
When redistributive issues are at stake, federal budgeting is
almost marked by conflict. In recent years, the conflicts have
tended to be over how to cut entitlements. Various techniques
have been employed to disguise cuts and to make them more
palatable. Omnibus budget packages permit legislators to
approve cuts en bloc instead of one by one, and across the board
formulas (such as freezes) give the appearances of spreading the
misery equally to affected groups. In all such vehicles

7. provisions of this sort are added to placate the more vocal
opponents of change.”[14]
To answer the question “What does the 2011 and 2013
Congressional debate over raising the federal debt
ceiling indicate about the Congressional budget process and the
nature of American politics and government?”
There are so many in office that are obstructionists. Rather
than do what is good for the country, they refuse to do what is
right and good for the country and want to fight over every little
thing (that includes the elite establishment Republicans). We
need to go to the process by which Newt Gingrich and that
congressional cadre accomplished all that they did.
Trish
Sources:
Anonymous, “Congressional Budget Gridlock,” 30, no. 1,
Washington, (2013): 21,
https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1508505336/fulltext/B13A49F
C02ED4178PQ/1?accountid=8289 (accessed February 7, 2018).
Boyer, Dave, “$20 Trillion Man: National Debt Nearly Doubles
During Obama Presidency,” The Washington Times, November
1,
2015, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obam
a-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/(accessed
February 7, 2018).
Davidson, Roger, Oleszek, Walter, and Lee, Frances, Congress
and Its Members, 12th ed., (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, a
division of Sage, 2009.
Gayner, Jeffrey, “The Contract with America: Implementing
New Ideas in the US,” The Heritage Foundation, October 12,
1995, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-
contract-america-implementing-new-ideas-the-us, (accessed
February 6, 2018).
McCulloch, J Huston, “An Improved Balanced Budget
Amendment,” The Independent Review, Fall 2012, 17, no
2, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_02_05_mcculloch.

8. pdf, (accessed February 4, 2018).
Response Three pol-06
the debate over raising the debt ceiling in the United States has
been an ongoing debate for decades. Of course, no one likes
using the phrase “raise taxes” nor do the citizens want to be told
that a specific public service is going to be reduced or cut all
together. This becomes a delicate game of juggling, especially
in different parts or regions of the country. Generally, citizens
who live in rural America are opposed to higher taxes to
provide more government sponsored services due to their
independent life style; they view the public services as
unnecessary. Likewise, citizens who live in Cities and
metropolitan areas are accustomed to and prefer the
conveniences offered by public services, again, generally
speaking. So the juggling game must be between these two
juxtaposing views allowing for the citizens in the middle to ebb
and flow with the slight adjustments. Now this break down of
the forces or opinions on government spending and borrowing is
rather simplistic, yet it lends itself to explain the deep
polarization we have within the Congress when it comes to the
budget process. During the last four years of President Obama’s
term, the American public became accustomed to hearing the
term “sequestration”. Many have not heard of it and were not
aware what it meant. Basically it means an automatic reduction
in the budget (Myers, 2014). This was done to prevent more
spending, which would drive up the amount of debt and possibly
hit the “ceiling”. Depending on which side of the aisle you
stand, sequestration can be interpreted as either a mechanism to
lower government spending or systematic budget reductions due
to the lack action by politicians (Myers, 2014). To me it is the
latter; relying on sequestration means arbitrary cutting in
budgets that may critically need the funding and by blindly
cutting the funding out could exacerbate an economical
challenge or create a whole new challenge. As pointed out in
our lesson this week, the Congress’ biggest tool of power given

9. to them in the Constitution is the power of the purse (Grulke,
2018). Although there are checks and balances to limit or
restrict some aspects of this responsibility, the fact that the
Government seems to always be on the brink of “shutting down”
is unacceptable. I could only imagine what would happen to my
job if by the middle of January (our budget submission
deadline) I just did not submit my budget. Yet the people keep
voting in the same folks to Congress. Why are we rewarding
people with a job and nod of approval if the approval rating is
so low for Congress? Something does not seem right; something
is broken. The process of Congressional budgeting is broken.
The art and civility of debate and compromise is broken, that is
what is indicated about the nature of American politics and
government. I am not an advocate for irresponsible spending nor
am I proposing unrealistic taxes, but a rational, responsible, and
intelligent way of balancing the two is possible. These tasks are
possible if the lobbyists, corporations, and donors of the
Congress are shut out and the People are put first again.
References
Grulke, Eric, “Week : Congressional Budget Ceiling Debate”,
American Military
University, accessed February 5, 2018,
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-
492d-8e6e-
b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&back
Path=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPag
e=1493987&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBe
fore=&itemId=4284554&path=push&addTool=-
1&recheck=&id=
Meyers, R. T. (2014). The Implosion of the Federal Budget
Process: Triggers, Commissions, Cliffs,
Sequesters, Debt Ceilings, and Shutdown. Public Budgeting &
Finance, 34(4), 1-23. doi:10.1111/pbaf.12049
Response four pol-06