Congressional Republicans who want legislative conditions in exchange for a debt-limit increase are following a strategy that has been pursued by both parties the majority of the time. Of the 53 increases in the debt limit, 26 were "clean"—that is, stand-alone, no strings-attached statutes. The remaining debt-limit increases were part of an omnibus package of other legislative bills or a continuing resolution. Other times, the limit was paired with reforms, only some of which were related to the budget.
I've posted an analysis of this at this link. Following is the key portion and conclusion:
So let's look at the Congressional Research Service study from which this statistic comes. It appears to have come from a study titled "Votes on Measures to Adjust the Statutory Debt Limit, 1978 to Present, released February 15, 2013. In its Summary, the study does state the following:
Since 1978, the statutory federal debt limit has been changed 53 times by Congress through the enactment of legislation adjusting the federal debt limit, either as stand-alone legislation or as part of legislation dealing with other matters.
The study contains three tables. Table 1 lists information on all 53 debt limit measures since 1978. Table 2 identifies 26 stand-alone measures from these 53. Table 3 then lists the other 27 bills considered as other than stand-alone measures and provides brief background information on the nature of each measure and by what means it was considered. The following table gives some of the key items from Table 1 for the 27 non-stand-alone measures:
OTHER THAN STAND-ALONE DEBT LIMIT MEASURES
House Vote Senate Vote Public Law Debt
---------------- ---------------- Date of Limit
Year Bill Number Tally Margin Tally Margin Enactment ($ bil)
---- ------------ -------- ------ -------- ------ ---------- ------
1979 H.R. 2534 209-165 44 62-33 29 4/2/1979 830*
H.R. 5369 219-198 21 49-29 20 9/29/1979 879*
1980 H.R. 7428 335-34 301 68-10 58 6/6/1980 n.c.
1983 H.R. 2990 Voice Vote 51-41 10 5/26/1983 1389*
1984 H.R. 5692 211-198 13 Voice Vote 5/25/1984 1520*
1985 H.R. 3721 300-121 179 Voice Vote 11/14/1985 1903.8
H.J.Res. 372 271-154 117 61-31 30 12/12/1985 2078.7
1986 H.R. 5300 305-70 235 61-25 36 10/21/1986 2300
1987 H.J.Res. 324 230-176 54 64-34 30 9/29/1987 2800*
1989 H.R. 3024 231-185 46 Voice Vote 8/7/1989 2870*
H.J.Res. 280 269-99 170 Voice Vote 11/8/1989 3122.7
1990 H.J.Res. 666 362-3 359 Voice Vote 10/9/1990 n.c.
H.J.Res. 677 379-37 342 Voice Vote 10/19/1990 n.c.
H.J.Res. 681 380-45 335 Unanimous Consent 10/25/1990 n.c.
H.J.Res. 687 283-49 234 Voice Vote 10/28/1990 3230
H.R. 5835 228-200 28 54-45 9 11/5/1990 4145*
1993 H.R. 2264 218-216 2 51-50 1 8/10/1993 4900*
1996 H.R. 2924 396-0 396 Unanimous Consent 2/8/1996
H.R. 3021 362-51 311 Voice Vote 3/12/1996
H.R. 3136 328-91 237 Unanimous Consent 3/29/1996 5500
1997 H.R. 2015 346-85 261 85-15 70 8/5/1997 5950
2008 H.R. 3221 272-152 120 72-13 59 7/30/2008 10615
H.R. 1424 263-171 92 74-25 49 10/3/2008 11315*
2009 H.R. 1 246-183-1 63 60-38 22 2/17/2009 12104*
2010 H.J.Res. 45 233-187 46 60-39 21 2/12/2010 14294*
2011 S. 365 269-161 108 74-26 48 8/2/2011 16394
2013 H.R. 325 285-144 141 64-34 30 2/4/2013
* measures with a final vote margin of less than 100 in the House or less
than 30 in the Senate
Note: n.c. = no change
Source: "Votes on Measures to Adjust the Statutory Debt Limit, 1978 to Present
A number of interesting facts are evident from this table. First of all, it doesn't appear that all of these 27 cases are independent. For example, there are 5 cases in less than a month, from 10/9/1990 through 11/5/1990. The first 3 of these cases involve no raise in the debt limit. Perhaps more interesting, the majority of these votes do not appear to be heavily contentious. Only 11 of the 27 measures resulted in a final vote margin of less than 100 in the House or less than 30 in the Senate. The following table contains notes from Table 3 on the 27 non-stand-alone measures:
OTHER THAN STAND-ALONE DEBT LIMIT MEASURES
Year Notes on the Measure
---- --------------------
1979 required Congress & President present balanced budgets for 81 and 82
made increase in debt limit part of budget process (in the House)
1980 included a repeal of the Presidentially imposed oil import fee
1983 included making the whole debt limit permanent
1984 included some miscellaneous admin authority to Treasury Secretary
1985 extended for a month some expiring acts, including a cigarette tax
required report on legislation for alternative minimum corporate tax
1986 required the restoration of lost interest to certain trust funds
1987 used as legislative vehicle for the Balanced Budget ... Act of 1987
1989 included change in method of accounting for federal debt instruments
repealed nondiscrimination rules that deal w/ employee benefit plans
1990 change in Debt Limit included in a continuing appropriations measure
change in Debt Limit included in a continuing resolution
change in Debt Limit included in a continuing resolution
change in Debt Limit included in a continuing resolution
change in Debt Limit included in Omnibus Budget Recon. Act of 1990
1993 change in Debt Limit included in Omnibus Budget Recon. Act of 1993
1996 temporarily exempted from limit monthly insurance benefits to SSA
temporarily exempted from limit monthly insurance benefits to SSA
included an increase in the debt limit in Title III
1997 included a debt limit increase in Title V, Subtitle G
2008 included an increase to the debt limit
included an increase to the debt limit
2009 included an increase to the debt limit
2010 included provisions for “Statutory PAYGO” and “wasteful spending”
2011 included provisions aimed at deficit reduction
2013 required hold on Member salary if no budget resolution by April 15
Source: "Votes on Measures to Adjust the Statutory Debt Limit, 1978 to Present
These are of course very abbreviated notes on the measures. Still, they suggest that most of the additional items in the measure were not very major. I saw no mention of the issues that Wallace mentioned above (campaign finance reform, school prayer and busing and a nuclear freeze). Also, it appears that some of the debt limit increases may have been included with other bills (such as continuing resolutions) simply for convenience. At the very least, more study would be required for these cases. Simply treating all non-stand-alone measures the same does not make sense. Hence, it may be correct that, as Secretary Lew suggested above, "the question of threatening to cause a default of the United States, not until 2011 did it become a positive agenda". On Friday, Warren Buffett was quoted as saying the following about the debt ceiling:
It ought to be banned as a weapon. It should be like nuclear bombs, I mean, basically too horrible to use.”
In fact, according to this article, only only one democratic country, besides America, has a debt ceiling. That country is Denmark but the article states that they "set the ceiling high enough so that it never slows the process of borrowing money and they can avoid political conflicts like the one currently gripping the U.S.". The article continues:
Barry Bosworth, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, said the U.S. debt ceiling “has no logical basis.”
Congress, through budget and appropriations bills, has sole authority to decide how much the government will spend, so he said “it makes no sense to have a secondary rule to then object to the deficit that emerges from the other decisions.”
At the very least, we could legislate that the debt ceiling must always be addressed in a stand-alone measure. Meanwhile, those who distort history to defend such threats, as do the authors of the Journal editorial, should be challenged.
Note: On a related issue, this article explains why government shutdowns only seem to occur in America.
I appreciate your thoughtful commentary and have added some to the shut down file I am keeping.
I would only argue that there is a very good reason why we have a debt ceiling and that Congress has control over it. It is because it gives the power of the purse to Congress and provides for a true separation of powers. I am not sad that we have had shut downs in the past or that we may have them in the future, but I would be very sad if the presidency gained even more power than it has and left the people of our country with violence as the only recourse to effectual negotiations in the seats of government.
Make no mistake, this administration would thumb their noses at Congress if it were not for the power of the purse. I would also argue that the parliaments of Europe are a complete mess and have absolutely desire to emulate them.