Congress Q&A: Debt Ceiling
“Is it possible to lower the debt ceiling?” — Lynne Re, Otis, Ore.
It is possible, but incredibly unlikely.
Congress can set the debt limit at wherever it likes, but lowering it without setting policies to decrease the debt dramatically would create a range of serious problems.
In order to lower the debt limit, the government would have to consistently run surpluses.
Given the fact that the federal government is expected to run a $1.48 trillion deficit in fiscal 2011 alone, it will take a Herculean effort just to balance the budget in the coming years. In the meantime, as deficits continue, the government will have to continue borrowing, and thus, raising the debt limit.
Even House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 34), which was adopted by the House on April 15, projects deficits into the next decade (though at decreasing levels) and estimates that the debt held by the public will grow by almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years.
What is the debt limit?
The federal debt has been restricted by a statutory limit since 1917, when the Treasury issued long-term bonds in order to help finance the United States’ entry into World War I. In 1939, Congress created the first aggregate limit, covering most forms of public debt.
The portion of the debt subject to limit is made up of two components, the debt held by government accounts and the debt held by the public.
The debt held by the public increases when the government sells debt to the public, including foreign governments and investors, the Federal Reserve, and state and local governments, to finance budget deficits. Currently, the debt held by the public is $9.6 trillion. According to the Treasury, about 47 percent of that debt is held outside the U.S. (breakdown as of February).
Debt is also held by government accounts, when the federal government issues debt to Social Security, Medicare and transportation trust funds in exchange for those programs’ reported surpluses. The trust fund balances are invested in special Treasury securities and constitute future obligations of the Treasury when those programs need to pay expenditures not fully covered by their annual receipts (see Q&A on Social Security trust fund).
Intragovernmental debt holdings currently equal $4.6 trillion.
Congress has raised the limit 10 times since 2001, when the limit had remained stable at $5.95 trillion since August 1997. In June 2002 the limit was raised to $6.4 trillion and has been raised by nearly a trillion dollars almost yearly since.
As of March 31st, the total public debt subject to limit stood at $14.217 trillion. The statutory debt limit, which was last increased in February 2010, is $14.294 trillion.
The Treasury projects the federal debt will reach its statutory limit by the middle of May, though it will be able to take measures to extend the borrowing capacity until the beginning of July.
— Frances Symes, Congress.org
=
The information below is an interesting point brought up by one member. It focuses on a GAO report whose summary is listed below. His email contained the following information:
I have found the 345 page report from the Government Accountability Office which details 34 areas of Government overlap and wasteful spending. This is the GAO web page where the report is summarized. The Summary is a nice overview of who commissioned the report itself, and what it contains.This is a direct link to the actual report itself, in PDF format.
The areas of interest in regards to the Education Departments are detailed in Areas 32, 33, and 34, which are found at the bottom of page 12 of the file. Area 32 of the report begins on page 145, which is the start of the report section
on Education.
GAO-11-318SP March 1, 2011
Full Report (PDF, 345 pages) Accessible Text Podcast
SummaryThis is GAO's first annual report to Congress in response to a new statutory requirement that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or activities. Congress asked GAO to conduct this work and to report annually on our findings. This work will inform government policymakers as they address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our national government. Given today's fiscal environment, Section II of this report summarizes 47 additional areas--beyond those directly related to duplication, overlap, or fragmentation--describing other opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. These cost-savings and revenue opportunities also span a wide range of federal government agencies and mission areas. The issues raised in both sections were drawn from GAO's prior and ongoing work. Many of the issues included in this report are focused on activities that are contained within single departments or agencies. In those cases, agency officials can generally achieve cost savings or other benefits by implementing existing GAO recommendations or by undertaking new actions suggested in this report. However, a number of issues we have identified, particularly in the duplication area, span multiple organizations and therefore may require higher-level attention by the executive branch or enhanced congressional oversight or legislative action. In some cases, there is sufficient information available today to show that if actions are taken to address individual issues summarized in this report, financial benefits ranging from the tens of millions to several billion dollars annually may be realized by addressing that single issue. For example, while the Department of Defense is making limited changes to the governance of its military health care system, broader restructuring could result in annual savings of up to $460 million. Similarly, we developed a range of options that could reduce federal revenue losses by up to $5.7 billion annually by addressing potentially duplicative policies designed to boost domestic ethanol production. (Note: didn't Obama just talk about increasing ethanol production? Does this mean even more waste? ) |