[Gen.Blather]

Since the debt limit has been raised every time it was challenged, I’d posit that there is no debt limit. It isn’t there. It never has been there. But should its ghost be eliminated? No. Because if it is then there will be zero scrutiny of the budget. You want to gold plate those bridges? Sure. You want the military to buy obsolete equipment because otherwise a plant would be shuttered in your district? Sure. At least at this point there is some semblance of a controlled budget. It’s just not as robust as the taxpayers would like.

[Bernard]

What budget? What scrutiny? There's going to be 1.2 Trillion with a T plus 3/5 Trillion with a T added to the spending orgy one way or another, plus the previous authorized but not spent yet orgies of the past, plus the normal every year deficit.

Which specific scrutiny are you speaking of? Because all I see is political Kabuki, with the Reluctant Spenders (REPS) trying to spend slightly less that the Enthusiastic Spenders (DEMS), which provides the opportunity to solicit campaign money from their respective true believers every time this comes up.

Real debt limit scrutiny and debate should be happening at each annual budget session, and every spending in a vacuum proposal. Having an additional debate about "Hey, we are out of money" debate is just more practice for the partisan screamers.

[scrabblehack]

So Boyle wants to put Treasury Secy in charge of raising the debt limit. OK, how about putting Congress in charge of selling Treasury Bills? The sponsor of the gold plate bridges would have to sell enough Treasury Bills to cover it.
The buyers of the Bills would have to be disclosed.

I’m sure there’s a downside there too.