Debt-ceiling showdown: 4 reasons it's not a replay of 2011

In 2011, Congress and President Obama went to the brink of government default when congressional Republicans balked at raising the nation's debt ceiling. The spring of 2013 appears to have another debt ceiling fight in store. Here are the top four things that have changed.

4. Like déjà vu, all over again

Brendan McDermid/REUTERS/File
Standard and Poor's knocked the US credit rating after the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis.

The 2012 elections didn’t shake up political leadership in Washington, meaning all the same players are in place in 2013 as were there in 2011.

When Republicans went to the debt-ceiling barricades in 2011, they were doing something that was somewhat novel – today’s GOP leadership, as liberal group Think Progress noted, voted for debt-ceiling hikes without a peep during the Bush presidency. (That was the same period in which then-Senator Obama was calling a vote to raise the debt ceiling a dereliction of leadership, so both sides’ ability to twist the issue for their purposes is well-established.)

But while economists warn a default on the nation’s debt would be hypothetically disastrous, we now know what the costs of a debt-ceiling fight are.

First up, lawmakers endured a downgrade of the nation’s credit by Standard & Poor’s in part because of political brinkmanship.

Next, they presided over falling consumer confidence, a hit that took consumer sentiment lower than it was in the aftermath of 9/11.

Third, the president’s approval rating sank, but Republicans saw their favorability absolutely plummet as Americans soured on all parts of Washington.

Fourth, the Government Accountability Office estimated the debt-ceiling scuffle of 2011 cost the US $1.4 billion in additional borrowing costs that year, because anxiety over the crisis led to a temporary increase in interest rates. The US will have to pay some bonds issued during that time during the next decade, so the Bipartisan Policy Center calculated more than $18 billion in higher interest costs to the US government over the coming 10 years.

In other words, all parties know what’s at stake. Or, at least, they should.

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.