Blog - A Brief History of Debt Limit Votes in the House 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
A Brief History of Debt Limit Votes in the House
May 20, 2011 - by Donny Shaw
We already know that the House Republicans support increasing the debt limit. All but four of them recently voted in favor of a budget blueprint that calls for adding $9 trillion to the debt subject to limit over the next decade. Yet somehow they have convinced Obama and the Democrats that they have to get something in return, like spending cuts that make tax increases less likely, in exchange for actually voting for the debt limit increase they’ve already endorsed.
Raising the debt limit is never popular, but both parties do it with a fair amount of regularity. As Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] noted last year, raising the debt limit is “the burden of the majority.” No matter which party is in power, the majority party has always been responsible for calling up a debt limit vote as the federal government gets close to borrowing more money to execute the laws than Congress has given them statutory authority to, and whipping their membership to get it passed. This year, however, the Republicans are bucking that trend. They seem to have convinced the Democrats that the government should either default on their obligations, or the debt limit increase should include hundreds of billions in spending cuts and preserve the low Bush-era tax rates, and that the Democrats should still provide a majority of the votes to pass it.
As I did for the Senate, below is a chart I put together using data from the Office of Management and Budget (caution, .xls file) showing all of the debt increase votes going back to 1997, what level they raised the limit to, and how many Republicans in the Senate voted for it.
| Bill Containing Debt Ceiling Increase | New Debt Ceiling Level Enacted | Number of Republicans in House Voting “Yes” | Party Controlling House/President |
|---|---|---|---|
| 111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (debt portion deemed passed in the rule, ) | $14,294,000,000,000 | 0 | Democrats/Obama |
| 111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009) | $12,394,000,000,000 | 0 | Democrats/Obama |
| 111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka TARP)(2009) | $12,104,000,000,000 | 0 | Democrats/Obama |
| 110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008) | $11,315,000,000,000 | 91 | Democrats/Bush |
| 110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008) | $10,615,000,000,000 | 45 | Democrats/Bush |
| 110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, S.Con.Res.21 | $9,815,000,000,000 | 0 | Democrats/Bush |
| 109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, H.Con.Res.95) | $8,965,000,000,000 | 214 | Republicans/Bush |
| 108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004) | $8,184,000,000,000 | 206 | Republicans/Bush |
| 108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, H.Con.Res.95 ) | $7,384,000,000,000 | 214 | Republicans/Bush |
| 107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002) | $6,400,000,000,000 | 211 | Republicans/Bush |
| 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997 | $5,950,000,000,000 | 193 | Republicans/Bush |
Whether you support or oppose the policies Republicans want to tack onto this, it’s clear that they’re on the verge of scoring a huge, historically anomalous, victory here. The Tea Party crowd has added a hard-line ideological edge to the Republican caucus, and the Democrats are clearly afraid. They’ve convinced the Democrats that this debt limit vote is different from all others. Rather than following the trend and taking a responsible, yet unpopular, vote, the Republicans are positioned to turn this into a big win — both policy-wise and politically.
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
- Welcome the 113th U.S. Congress:... January 03, 2013
- Secretive Conference Committee F... December 20, 2012
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
Displaying 1-30 of 68 total comments.
This reads as written by an apparent fan of the GOP’s despicable tactics. I think the majority of Americans fully recognize that Republicans are doing no less than playing an ideological game of chicken with the economy — merely to score political points.
Surely the Tea Parties influence on today’s political climate is apparent, however this change in paradigm is most certainly not a win of any kind. It is instead a superfluous waste of valuable time, serving only to clutter the issue and preempt important policy discussion about the future of our country.
This reads as written by an apparent fan of the GOP’s despicable tactics. I think the majority of Americans fully recognize that Republicans are doing no less than playing an ideological game of chicken with the economy — merely to score political points.
Surely the Tea Parties influence on today’s political climate is apparent, however this change in paradigm is most certainly not a win of any kind. It is instead a superfluous waste of valuable time, serving only to clutter the issue and preempt important policy discussion about the future of our country.
Not necessarily. It’s call objectivity. If they can provoke the Democrats (the minority party) into supplying the majority of the votes to pass this, oh, and by the way, get their agenda passed along with it, all the while voting against it, or abstaining, they can: a.) get their agenda in place b.) make the democrats look fiscally irresponsible and c.)back democrats further into a corner.
The fact of the matter is, until the left grows a backbone and starts taking stands, they’re going to be ground up like dog meat by the corporate machine that is the republican party, no matter who’s got the better ideas.
Spam Comment
Wait a minute, are you all really saying it’s more responsible for a vote to be taken to increase the debt, with no cutbacks whatsoever?
Yes, they have shown support for raising the limit, but why is that a bad thing? Who said they had to be against it? All the Republicans want is something in return. Why is that a horrible idea?
I’m actually in favor of NOT raising the debt limit, and making us deal with the problems we’ve generated for ourselves. I understand though why that stance isn’t likely and will result in the worst outcome, so as a voter I can understand raising the limit, but only if some fiscal responsiblity for the future is included. Maybe a balanced budget amendment, maybe a trillion or two in cuts in spending, and maybe even some tax increases. Although it’s been shown multiple times raising taxes doesn’t raise revenue, I also understand non-fiscal conservatives aren’t as educated as the rest of us, so we’d have to include that for the minority.
Spam Comment
and luminous, this is one of those times I can completely agree with you. No matter how this debt ceiling vote turns out, Republicans will get blame from someone, somewhere, and the media will fly with it.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
“Republicans will get blame from someone, somewhere, and the media will fly with it.”
It is well earned blame, they dug their hole and now they get to live with it. They where elected on a jobs message, so far they have yet to produce a single piece of jobs legislation. And the multi state effort to attack groups that either fund the opposition, or tend to vote democratic, packaged with renewed efforts to privatise public services without public input or vote. Along with any Tea party lead states centralising power in the state executive government, to the extent of allowing the governor to disenfranchise cities and towns effectively firing their elected officials(MI EFM law, soon to, FL, WI, maybe OH). And we can’t forget the Anti-brown people laws, and return of Jim crow voter laws in some states(WI, OH, FL, TX).
The Tea parties accomplishments read more like the 1933 enabling act passed by the Reichstag then the ideal of America.
There’s definitely no love lost because they haven’t pursued jobs as vigorously as they said they would. Although I do think “job bills” can take different forms, including lowering taxes.
Are you talking about the union bills popping up everywhere? If so, I can’t see how anyone elected to Congress is directly responsible for that. And personally, anyone bargaining a pay wage that takes their pay from taxes shouldn’t be unioned, IMO. I can’t see how bargaining a pay or benefit raise while being a public worker can lead to lower taxes for anyone, including the public worker. It’s just more enslavement of EVERYONE to support the few workers who benefit. What’s EFM law?
Spam Comment
“I also understand non-fiscal conservatives aren’t as educated as the rest of us, so we’d have to include that for the minority.”
Correlation is not causation! Higher taxes do raise more revenue, but they also change the distribution of wealth. They have the effect of putting more money into the hands of the working class, either through social programs or direct government spending. When the working class has more money they spend more which in turn employs others in the working class. While higher taxes will have an immediate increase in revenue over time the economic growth in the working class puts money in the hands of those they pay lower rates in the tax brackets that apply to them which slowly equilibrates the total GDP, mind you revenue is still higher it just appears lower because it moves the GDP higher as well.
Spam Comment
“Wait a moment, what laws are you referring to? I haven’t heard anything about “jim crow” laws coming back into style.”
Utah just passed a sb1070 like law(held up in courts atm), FL has tried to pass something like it. Several southern states has passed similar laws.
The voter ID laws passed in WI, OH, FL, PA all have 1 thing in common they go beyond a simple ID requirement. In several version of those laws they make it illegal for college students to vote in their college town, several don’t address the unconstitutionality of poll taxes(as state issued photo id costs money), they pretty much all limit early voting, limit mail in voting, The FL law puts a $1000 fine on voter registration forms that are not turned in within 48 hours of being signed. The FL law also legalises voter caging operations.
Spam Comment
After taking a look at the charts that you hate, from 1953 to the present, it really only appears as if corporate revenue has gone down as a percentage of GDP, everyone else has stayed pretty much where they began. Now, other than inflating dollars for today’s value with inflation, I don’t know of any other good way to compare 50 years ago with today other than using GDP. Do you have any suggestions?
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Also, it should be said, those laws you pointed out are not “Jim Crow” laws. One is to stop someone from breaking the law, the other is to enforce honesty while voting. I can’t say the idea of allowing someone to vote w/o a picture ID proving it’s them is reassuring. It makes me wonder how many elections I’ve taken part in at places I’ve never been.
Spam Comment
“I can’t say the idea of allowing someone to vote w/o a picture ID proving it’s them is reassuring. It makes me wonder how many elections I’ve taken part in at places I’ve never been.”
I can’t say I am particularly against picture ID, I am against all of the other nonsense riding along side in these bills. Alot of the extra stuff in these bills is the same garbage that was used to keep blacks from voting in the south before the VRA, its disgusting that anyone would pass laws like these now.
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
And I quote from the constitution,..
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;”
Seems pretty clear to me!, The fed’s existing laws trumps the laws of the States!!!
Oh, ok, you’re talking about total revenue, where it was 19.57% GDP in 1953 and is now 14.91% in 2010. Yeah, big change.
No doubt about it. If it doesn’t go to the supreme court, I will be HIGHLY surprised.
It’s not about the number of provisions, it’s about the interpretation of those provisions. And both articles I showed gave different ways to interpret that. Considering the 14th Amendment was for slave freedom, and now is used for “anchor babies”, it’s proven that Amendment has been interpreted different ways throughout the years. Also, the FED is not supreme to the laws of the states. The states can leave the “republic” (using the term loosely) whenever they want. Once they do, the FED’s laws don’t apply.