Could Congress just raise Debt Ceiling to Quadrillion, and continually fund gov?

[Blue3]

Could Congress just

a. raise the Debt Ceiling to $100 Quadrillion (or another absurdly high number that could never be reached in our lifetime)?

b. continually fund the federal government for perpetuity, keeping all funding the same until Congress passes a law to change funding for something (whether it's eliminating/creating or increasing/decreasing funding for a program)... thereby preventing the need for an annual budget or the threat of a government shutdown?


1. Would it be theoretically possible?

2. Would it be possible for Democrats to pass it, when they regain control of Congress (sooner or later)

[Ebsy]

They could (and should) just abolish the debt ceiling. It's a self imposed limit that could only serve to cause monumental harm to the country.

[Crumpets]

Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but I'm sure the Democrats will want to pull the exact same stunts as the Republicans have next time there's a Republican president. (i.e. "We will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless president Cruz ends federal subsidies for NRA conventions!")

[Orser67]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/how-dick-gephardt-fixed-the-debt-ceiling-problem/238571/

Prior to 1995, the ceiling was raised automatically with each new appropriation bill. So Congress actually has a few options regarding the debt ceiling.

[Likely Voter]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/how-dick-gephardt-fixed-the-debt-ceiling-problem/238571/

Prior to 1995, the ceiling was raised automatically with each new appropriation bill. So Congress actually has a few options regarding the debt ceiling.

I have never understood why they were separated. Once Congress appropriates money they have essentially approved the required increase in debt. It makes no sense to have to make a separate vote, especially as it is an uncomfortable vote. Better to bury it in the appropriations.

[cinyc]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/how-dick-gephardt-fixed-the-debt-ceiling-problem/238571/

Prior to 1995, the ceiling was raised automatically with each new appropriation bill. So Congress actually has a few options regarding the debt ceiling.

I have never understood why they were separated. Once Congress appropriates money they have essentially approved the required increase in debt. It makes no sense to have to make a separate vote, especially as it is an uncomfortable vote. Better to bury it in the appropriations.

Congress hasn't passed an actual budget or omnibus appropriation bills for years, largely due to Democratic intransigence.  Harry Reid never wanted to put the Democrats on record, and continues to obstruct Republican appropriation bills.

Constitutionally, the House is supposed to have the power of the purse.  I'm not sure why any Congress should abdicate that responsibility and let the executive spend whatever it wants whenever it wants.  Our government isn't supposed to work that way.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/how-dick-gephardt-fixed-the-debt-ceiling-problem/238571/

Prior to 1995, the ceiling was raised automatically with each new appropriation bill. So Congress actually has a few options regarding the debt ceiling.

I have never understood why they were separated. Once Congress appropriates money they have essentially approved the required increase in debt. It makes no sense to have to make a separate vote, especially as it is an uncomfortable vote. Better to bury it in the appropriations.

Congress hasn't passed an actual budget or omnibus appropriation bills for years, largely due to Democratic intransigence.  Harry Reid never wanted to put the Democrats on record, and continues to obstruct Republican appropriation bills.

Constitutionally, the House is supposed to have the power of the purse.  I'm not sure why any Congress should abdicate that responsibility and let the executive spend whatever it wants whenever it wants.  Our government isn't supposed to work that way.

Raising the debt ceiling is not a blank check. It only allows the government to spend what it already has agreed to spend by passing Budgets or CRs.

[cinyc]

Raising the debt ceiling is not a blank check. It only allows the government to spend what it already has agreed to spend by passing Budgets or CRs.

Please look at Blue3's option b.  That does not merely involve raising the debt ceiling, but budgeting forever.  Which would be a dumb thing to do for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that circumstances change and different parts of the bureaucracy need to grow or shrink from year to year.  It's also probably illegal, as one Congress can't bind the next.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The entire notion of a "debt ceiling" is an American archaism that makes no sense to an outside observer.

[Blue3]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/how-dick-gephardt-fixed-the-debt-ceiling-problem/238571/

Prior to 1995, the ceiling was raised automatically with each new appropriation bill. So Congress actually has a few options regarding the debt ceiling.

I have never understood why they were separated. Once Congress appropriates money they have essentially approved the required increase in debt. It makes no sense to have to make a separate vote, especially as it is an uncomfortable vote. Better to bury it in the appropriations.

Congress hasn't passed an actual budget or omnibus appropriation bills for years, largely due to Democratic intransigence.  Harry Reid never wanted to put the Democrats on record, and continues to obstruct Republican appropriation bills.

Constitutionally, the House is supposed to have the power of the purse.  I'm not sure why any Congress should abdicate that responsibility and let the executive spend whatever it wants whenever it wants.  Our government isn't supposed to work that way.

I don't think you understand it. It's not saying the executive can spend whatever it wants.

It would say the programs that exist would continue to be funded at current level indefinitely.

If someone wants to decrease spending in something, pass a law.
If someone wants to increase spending in something, pass a law.
If someone wants to eliminate something (and its funding), pass a law.
If someone wants to create something (and its funding), pass a law.

So a government shutdown can no longer happen because of inaction.

No more annual budgets. Just a budget for perpetuity, that can be amended as much as Congress votes it to be amended.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There still would need to be at least a biennial budget bill, if only for part of the government.  The Constitution explicitly limits bills funding Armies [plural is in the text] (but not the Navy) to two years. Given the intended purpose of the limit, I would say it is an open question whether the FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. would fall under the limit on funding Armies. It's doubtful the Founders foresaw the multiplicity of law enforcement agencies the Federal government has today.