The debt ceiling is not a negotiating item

Jason Linkins on Huffington Post skewers those who "enable" the loonies who treat the debt ceiling as a negotiating weapon, threatening to hold the U. S. economy hostage in order to get their way on spending cuts.

The enablers he refers to are not just those in Congress who are gearing up to fight President Obama.   Here's what he says:

"But the enabling isn't just happening in Congress, it's happening in the media, as well, which is why another thing I would like to make clear is that those who see debt ceiling lunacy as a legitimate side in a debate or just one more interesting point of view among many are just as culpable in what could be a pending economic calamity as the lunatics themselves. I'm not alone in this concern."

He then quotes Greg Sargent on how the media has incorrectly framed the debate:

"Indeed, you can read through much of the coverage and come away with the sense that this is a typical negotiation: Democrats want a rise in the debt ceiling; Republicans want spending cuts; therefore, the two sides are squaring off for a game of chicken to see who can extract more from the other. That’s not what’s happening at all, and any accounts that portray it as such present a deeply unbalanced picture."

Linkins goes on:

"Exactly right: we should not be talking about a "debate" over the debt ceiling, or portraying a rise in the debt ceiling as a thing that Democrats "want" or are bargaining to obtain. I require oxygen to continue respiring. Oxygen is not something I "want" or am bargaining to obtain. Give me oxygen right now or I die and that's that. The rise in the debt ceiling is similarly necessary, because Congress has already agreed to spend a certain amount of money, and according to this dumb ritual, must now affirm their intentions to fulfill their previously agreed-to obligations. This is not a matter for debate . . . "

Is it really that simple, though?   Of course the debt ceiling is as he says it is.   But I think Republicans want more than just a hostage-like negotiating ploy.  They want it also to carry the implication that it has to do with future spending.  Well, in a way it does -- in that the more you fight about raising it now to pay for debts already incurred, the more you will be cautious in how much more future debt you incur -- because the next debt ceiling raise will be coming. 

So the real fight should be over whether to get rid of having to vote to raise the debt ceiling?  If Congress votes to appropriate the money, shouldn't the executive simply be authorized to arrange for loans to pay for it -- without having to fight with Congress to agree to pay for what they have appropriated?

Perhaps that just too simple and logical.

Ralph