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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less