Skip ahead to page content

entitlements.jpg

Raising the Debt Limit…again

December 15, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker

This week, Congress plans to increase the debt limit -- the legal cap on government borrowing -- by nearly $2 trillion. This record increase, which will likely be buried in "must-pass legislation" in order to dodge criticism and delays, would bring the current $12.1 trillion limit to about $14 trillion.  

Just how much is $14 trillion? It's as much as all Americans produce over the course of the entire year.

To explain what the debt limit means and how it came about, The Heritage Foundation produced a video which lays out, in plain English, why more government spending leads to ever increasing piles of debt..

» Watch "The Debt Limit: Made Simple" online and get answers to your questions.

The proposal to increase the debt limit, however, has run into some roadblocks -- namely, moderate Democrats who favor a smaller increase and Republicans who oppose raising the spending limit altogether. And a bipartisan group of lawmakers favors creating a new commission to address deficit reduction and overspending. But such a commission "is a total no-go with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.," reports Andrew Taylor for the Associated Press.

"Instead of reducing the size of government and controlling spending, Democrats are planning to raise the debt limit by $1.8 trillion, putting American taxpayers in even deeper debt to countries like China," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).

Heritage experts have long argued that the debt limit should be taken seriously, especially during a recession. Rather than raising the debt ceiling every time government wants to spend more money, Congress should take a serious look inside at government programs and find areas -- and there are many -- where spending can be cut or redirected toward future, higher priority projects. In short, Congress should spend within its means.

A bipartisan debt commission like that favored by many lawmakers would be a step in the right direction and would help members of Congress to identify existing opportunities to save. And this commission could produce immediate results by addressing the long-term budget problems posed by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

If government insists on spending more, it should look within before it looks to the taxpayers. Otherwise, Washington will continue to raise their spending limit every time it maxes out its credit card. And hardworking Americans will have to clean up the mess.

Heritage Tells the Truth About Copenhagen

The Heritage Foundation's Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman are attending the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference to expose the true costs of the Left's proposals to control carbon emissions.

» Follow their reports on The Foundry and at Heritage's Copenhagen Consequences Web site.

The conference has devolved into something of a circus, as Heritage's Conn Carroll writes in today's Morning Bell. Developing countries have walked out of the conference, demanding "that richer nations sign a treaty that includes a large transfer of wealth to the developing world to compensate for the developed world's historical contribution to global warming." Adding to the chaos, the proceedings are held in a venue that holds only a third of the 45,000 attendees.

Meanwhile, Carroll points out that there is a direct correlation between increased public knowledge about a global warming bill or treaty and public disapproval thereof:

A new poll by Gallup/USA Today finds that when given no specifics, Americans generally support a climate treaty 55%-38%. But once you start informing Americans about the trade offs involved with such a deal, support plummets. 46% of Americans sat they worry more that the United States will take actions against global warming that cripple the U.S. economy. Furthermore, by a 7 to 1 margin Americans say the Obama administration should put a higher priority on improving the economy than reducing on global warming.

Countless studies by Heritage experts and others reveal that a climate change treaty would inflict tremendous harm on the United States. It would impose massive energy cost increases, destroy jobs and undermine American sovereignty in exchange for little to no environmental benefit.

Unfortunately, these important facts often fall under the category of the "specifics" that Americans aren't receiving. This is because "many in this debate like to pretend that aggressive emissions [controls] are a slam dunk win for communities around the world," writes Heritage guest blogger Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). "The human economic costs tend to get brushed aside in this great crusade toward 'progress.'"

Other Heritage work of note

  • "Through incremental expansions of government programs like the State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) program the Left has been slowly moving us closer to single payer government run health care system for decades," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll. Though Obamacare may accelerate the process, the government has for decades been inching its way into the private health care sector. Some on the Left play down the so-called "public option" as a small piece of the health care reform puzzle. But the Left cannot really separate Obamacare from the government-run health plan, and Carroll provides five reasons why.
  • Before taking control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the Left complained—and justifiably so—about the special interest earmarks in spending bills and the continued deficits. Unfortunately, liberals have continued the predecessors' practice, Heritage expert Brian Riedl reports: the omnibus 2010 spending bill contains 5,224 pork-barrel projects. On top of that, and despite the recession, the bill hikes discretionary spending by eight percent—this on top of the spending increases added through the "stimulus" bill.
  • The massive federal spending bill would also eliminate the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school choice program benefitting low-income students in the nation's capital. The language prohibits any new students from receiving the scholarships, which currently provide 1,700 children with the opportunity to escape the poor curriculum and often dangerous environment of their public school and attend a private school of their choice. The President has repeatedly pledged to keep "what works" in education, and Heritage study after Heritage study shows that this program works. Congress should build upon its success, not phase it out.
  • The transportation plan currently working its way through Congress is a ghastly "exercise in social engineering," Heritage's Ron Utt explains. "As currently written," he argues, the bill "would dramatically change federal transportation policy by shifting resources from cars to trolleys and buses; requiring a huge tax increase to fund these new commitments; centralizing transportation decisions in Washington; requiring a substantial increase in the numbers of state, local, and federal government employees; and discouraging the private sector from investing in surface transportation projects."

In other news

  • Iranian officials have announced that three Americans, who have been jailed since July, will face trial for crossing the border from Iraq. This decision is certain to strain U.S.-Iranian relations at a time when Tehran is locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program.
  • Progressive activists angered by Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) opposition to the so-called "public option" for a government-run health care plan are now targeting his wife's work with Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer foundation.
  • The Washington Examiner reports that only one fourth of AARP revenues come from membership dues, while the rest come from selling AARP's name to businesses, including businesses that would benefit from Obamacare. The organization for seniors has endorsed the big-government health care plan.

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org-- a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.