WASHINGTON — With the White House and Congress engaged in their second major battle in 18 months over the debt limit, some lawmakers, economists and analysts are offering a simple solution: Just get rid of it.
The U.S. is one of the few nations with such a borrowing mechanism. And as political fights over raising the limit have escalated in recent years, chilling financial markets and triggering the first-ever U.S. credit-rating downgrade, critics said the time has come to make a change in Washington.
“Congress has gone from grandstanding on the debt ceiling to actual use of it as an economic weapon of mass destruction," Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said. “It's extremely dangerous."
Welch and several Democratic House colleagues last week proposed eliminating the debt limit, which has been in place since 1939, to avoid the risk of a default.
They're joined by a growing chorus of analysts who have called the U.S. debt limit “ridiculous," “screwy" and just plain “nuts."
“The debt ceiling is a dumb idea with no benefits and potentially catastrophic costs if ever used," Richard Thaler, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, wrote in response to a University of Chicago poll of economists released this month.
House Republican leaders, for now at least, want to put off a showdown. The House voted Wednesday to suspend the limit until mid-May. In effect, there will be no debt limit for four months.
The White House backed the short-term plan Tuesday, and indications were that the Senate would go along with the strategy.
The move delays the looming threat of a default, but the broader debate over the debt limit and its role will continue to simmer.
In each year's budget, Congress decides how much money should be spent, which also determines how much must be borrowed to cover any shortfall in revenue. So Congress also must frequently increase the debt limit to allow for the borrowing.
The debt limit has been raised 76 times since 1962. It now stands at $16.4 trillion, a level the government will hit as early as mid-February.
The University of Chicago's survey of 38 academic economists found that 84 percent agreed that “a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse fiscal outcomes." Just 3 percent disagreed.
“It's a very unusual provision because in most countries, if they vote for a budget, they either have to borrow the money to pay for it or they have to raise taxes or cut someplace else," said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.
“Separating out the spending from the actual payment for the spending is just a reckless fiscal policy," Kirkegaard said.