Get ready for another dumb debt limit fight

[Bloomberg]( Follow Us [Get the newsletter]( Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](. Here comes the stupidest debate in Washington again. Yup: It’s the debt limit, which will need to be raised sometime this summer or fall. Everything about this process is pointless. To be sure, there are legitimate arguments to be had over federal budget deficits, and about specific government expenditures and tax measures. The debt limit itself, however, has no place in those arguments. Nothing would change if there was no statutory ceiling on government borrowing. Policies would still produce the deficits, balance or surplus that Congress intended, and those totals would likely be exactly the same as they are now. All the debt limit does is require a vote that no one wants to take and create the unlikely but real possibility that the U.S. could default — a possibility so disastrous that it causes a drag on the entire economy. In short, the debt limit should be abolished. Unfortunately, the politics involved have only become worse over time. It’s always been fairly normal for the out-party to vote against raising the limit, forcing the majority to supply the votes. Majorities have, in the past, fought back by attaching increased funding to some popular program, forcing the minority to either support lifting the ceiling or look bad for opposing something constituents want. A stupid piece of political theater on both sides, but mostly harmless. During Barack Obama’s presidency, however, Republicans decided that the debt limit gave them leverage over the White House. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with using leverage to bargain for a party’s priorities. But in this case, Republicans’ “leverage” consisted of a threat to destroy the economy if Obama didn’t do what they wanted. After all, they didn’t actually support lower budget deficits unless it was on their terms — which is just another way of saying that their policy preferences didn’t, and still don’t, actually include lower deficits. It was as if House Democrats during Donald Trump’s presidency had threatened to refuse to fund the military unless Republicans agreed to Medicare for All. They may prefer somewhat lower defense spending, but they don’t actually want to shut down the military, and it would be grossly irresponsible to make such a demand. At any rate, Democrats for some reason didn’t insist on attaching a debt limit increase to the bipartisan relief bill passed at the end of 2020. Nor did they add it to the partisan relief bill passed by this Congress. It also doesn’t look like they’re going to add it to the current infrastructure bill. They might add such a measure to a future bill passed using the reconciliation procedure, which requires only a simple majority in the Senate. Or they could bring it to the Senate floor to demonstrate how dangerous the filibuster is during a period of partisan polarization. It’s never been clear exactly what circumstances would push filibuster-supporting Democrats to flip, but the threat of defaulting over the debt limit might be one possibility — as might the threat of a government shutdown if Republicans appear intent on forcing one by filibustering spending bills this fall. This is, by the way, one place where President Joe Biden could show some leadership and ask Democrats to end the nonsense. Yes, they wouldn’t be thrilled to take such a vote. But they’ve mostly cast off their old fears about deficit politics, and they might as well cast this one off too. It would be the right thing to do for the party, for their agenda and for the nation. Also? Unlike the relief bill and other measures Democrats are willing to vote for, it wouldn’t add one penny to the federal debt. All of which is to say that we should expect a fair amount of hype about a possible debt-limit disaster, but as long as Democrats retain their slim majorities in the House and Senate it’s extremely unlikely that there’s anything to really worry about. Just, well, a whole bunch of malarkey. 1. Andrea Benjamin on [political action and hope](. 2. Matt Grossmann speaks with Joseph Uscinski and Adam Enders about [conspiracy theories](. 3. Christine Nemacheck at the Monkey Cage on [strategic judicial retirements](. 4. Dan Drezner on [the dollar](. 5. The gang at FiveThirtyEight on [Biden’s first 100 days](. I’d say that most presidency scholars think the whole 100 days thing is silly … except that I already participated in [such a conversation last week](. 6. Isaac Arnsdorf on why some fundraising totals from controversial members of Congress [may not be all that they seem](. 7. And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Timothy L. O’Brien on [why Tucker Carlson likely isn’t going anywhere](. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](. Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.  Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can’t find anywhere else. [Learn more](.  You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Early Returns newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Bloomberg.com]( | [Contact Us]( Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington, New York, NY, 10022