Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the U.S. got two financial crises for the price of one

President Biden speaking to reporters

President Biden spoke to reporters Monday about the need to raise the debt ceiling.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Wilson is an associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis and a public voices fellow at The OpEd Project.

A major crisis may have been averted, but the short-term gain will lead to a much greater long-term cost.

Congress recently narrowly avoided another government shutdown after contentious back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans and first failing to pass a federal funding bill. The potential shutdown would have affected key government services such as the certain health care programs, food stamps and national parks.

Preventing the shutdown with mere hours to go may seem like a political victory but, to be sure, no one is winning.

Yes, vital services have been given the lifeline to continue but at a high cost. The measures assure they will have enough funding to sustain through Dec. 3rd, at which point another spending measure must be secured or a government shutdown will occur.

The major issues and conflicts that led to the partisan divide in the first place are far from resolved. Instead of meeting the deadline with resolution and newly recommitted compromise, policymakers hastily made short-term deals. They valued speed over quality and disregarded compromise.

No one needs to be reminded that our nation is facing one of the worst public health crises of our time with Covid-19 reaching the recent milestone of 700,000 deaths. Nor has anyone likely forgotten the need for vital government services, many of which would have been impacted by a shutdown. While addressing these issues fiscally may have been avoided for now, the longer impact still remains, both in terms of the financial and political repercussions.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently warned of the implications that failing to increase the debt ceiling could have, citing the potential for "widespread economic catastrophe." Even by narrowly avoiding the government shutdown, the country is faced with potentially defaulting on its debt as it approaches the national debt limit.

The United States usually spends more than it takes in and that tradition requires outside loans to make up the difference. Defaulting would waver the confidence of creditors and could usher in a series of steep political consequences, from future financial security to diplomacy with current and former allies.

The quick fix to avoid shutting down the government is not likely to impress U.S. creditors or offer much promise in addressing the arguably greater financial crisis in the debt ceiling limitations.

Understanding how it got to this point is easy. Debt accrues when debits outweigh credits. Necessarily expanding the role of government, especially in the last 19 months of Covid has only added to the costs, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be more than $2.4 trillion.

Yet identifying who is responsible becomes a far greater challenge. Some Democrats argue that both parties proposed policies that have led to this point while many Republicans have repeatedly said they will not pass a measure that will support policies they don't back. These include some items in the more liberal social agenda negotiated within the Democratic Party.

Recent polling indicates Americans generally agree with Republicans and subscribe blame to Democrats — as the party has enjoyed unified power in both houses of Congress and the White House since the last election.

With the congressional midterm elections looming next year, it is a political hot potato that no single party or politician wants to hold. And after seeing how leaders struggled to address government shutdown, the debt ceiling proves to be a far greater political challenge.

To be sure, the government has shut down 10 times in the last four decades but the circumstances have never been more dire and simultaneously avoidable.

Covid cases and deaths are slowly starting to drop nationally but the pandemic and its ravaging effects are far from over. Though government at all levels has been involved in economic recovery and public health measures, the federal government has borne the bulk of that responsibility, primarily under the American Rescue Plan. That plan allocated $1 trillion in tax credits and programs, $350 billion to emergency management funding, and $10 billion in relief for homeowners.

The price tag is hefty; the loss of lives is far greater.

Without congressional compromise to fund government agencies and avoid defaulting on credits by extending the national debt ceiling, the nation will face a substantial financial catastrophe. This would be the greatest challenge to the administration since President Biden took office in January.

Biden has been relatively quiet on this issue, seemingly leaving it up to Congress to work out the fight while he still reels from the debacle in Afghanistan and continues to focus on vaccination efforts as a reductive approach to Covid.

One of the challenges for Democrats is assuaging more liberal interests with more moderate pursuits and appeasing everyone in the party through the process. Biden initially ran against dozens of potential presidential candidates within his party, won his primary and ultimately the general election — all with the promise of compromise, moderate policies and strong leadership.

As the nation approaches the threat of the debt ceiling at the end of the month, Americans need compromise and strong leadership more than ever before.

This is the urgent season of change every American needs to witness.

Read More

Man stepping on ripped poster

A man treads on a picture of Syria's ousted president, Bashar al-Assad, as people enter his residence in Damascus on Dec. 8.

Omar Haj Kadour/AFP via Getty Images

With Assad out, this is what we must do to help save Syria

This was a long day coming, and frankly one I never thought I’d see.

Thirteen years ago, Syria’s Bashar Assad unleashed a reign of unmitigated terror on his own people, in response to protests of his inhumane Ba’athist government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Men and a boy walking through a hallway

Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, with his son X, depart the Capitol on Dec. 5.

Craig Hudson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Will DOGE promote efficiency for its own sake?

This is the first entry in a series on the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board created by President-elect Donald Trump to recommend cuts in government spending and regulations. DOGE, which is spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has generated quite a bit of discussion in recent weeks.

The goal of making government efficient is certainly an enviable one indeed. However, the potential for personal biases or political agendas to interfere with the process must be monitored.

As DOGE suggests cuts to wasteful spending and ways to streamline government operations, potentially saving billions of dollars, The Fulcrum will focus on the pros and cons.

We will not shy away from DOGE’s most controversial proposals and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

The new Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board to be headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is designed to cut resources and avoid waste — indeed to save money. Few can argue this isn't a laudable goal as most Americans have experienced the inefficiencies and waste of various government agencies.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
From left: Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron, Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron on Dec. 7. No one will be able to restrain Trump's foreign policy efforts.

The true Trump threat

Many Americans fear what Donald Trump will do after assuming the presidency in January — and understandably so. Trump's pathological self-absorption has no place in American government, let alone at its very top.

But the specific type of threat Trump poses is often misunderstood. Like all presidents, his domestic powers are limited. He will face stiff resistance at the federal, state and local levels of government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
Remon Haazen/Getty Images

What is Trump really going to do?

President-elect Donald Trump is rapidly turning out names of potential nominees for his incoming administration. Most are strong supporters not only of Trump himself, but also his agenda. It is highly likely that they will be more than happy to help the incoming president implement his wishes.

Trump may also be emboldened by what he perceives to be an electoral mandate (although his final tally came up a bit short of one). Supporters and opponents alike wonder which campaign promises he will keep and which policies he will prioritize. So, what did the voters who supported him want him to do? Data collected for the GW Politics Poll, which I direct with colleagues at George Washington University, provides some insights.

Keep ReadingShow less