"I would vote to increase the debt limit if there was a corresponding level of cuts. And if there was some serious talk about a balanced budget amendment, which we as governors always had to deal with"
About this Quote
Huntsman ties support for raising the federal debt ceiling to concrete spending restraint and to momentum toward a balanced budget amendment, grounding his conditions in his experience as a governor bound by balanced budget rules. The move signals fiscal hawkishness without embracing outright default: he acknowledges the ceiling must rise but insists on guardrails that reassure skeptics of federal profligacy.
The context is the recurring Washington standoffs, especially the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and the GOPs Cut, Cap, and Balance push. Many states, including Utah under Huntsman, must match general fund spending to revenues each year. That executive reality gives him a credibility claim and a rhetorical contrast with Congress, which can run persistent deficits. By invoking gubernatorial discipline, he translates a state-level norm into a federal aspiration.
There is a policy tension embedded here. The debt limit concerns paying for obligations already enacted, not authorizing new spending. Using it as leverage can inject risk into the credit system and invite brinkmanship. Moreover, a strict federal balanced budget amendment could be economically rigid, limiting countercyclical borrowing during recessions or emergencies. Most state rules are softened by capital budgets, rainy-day funds, and accounting flexibility; the federal government also bears unique responsibilities for stabilization and defense, and borrows in its own currency. Serious talk about an amendment would therefore need carve-outs and supermajority escape valves, lest it force pro-cyclical austerity.
Huntsmans formulation nevertheless captures a political instinct: voters will tolerate a necessary debt ceiling increase if it is paired with credible, measurable steps to curb future deficits. His conditions read as a test of seriousness rather than a demand for instant balance. As a candidate branded as pragmatic, he seeks to bridge Republican orthodoxy on spending with an aversion to economic chaos. The line works as both policy signal and identity claim, presenting fiscal responsibility as the price of trust while distancing himself from reckless brinkmanship.
The context is the recurring Washington standoffs, especially the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and the GOPs Cut, Cap, and Balance push. Many states, including Utah under Huntsman, must match general fund spending to revenues each year. That executive reality gives him a credibility claim and a rhetorical contrast with Congress, which can run persistent deficits. By invoking gubernatorial discipline, he translates a state-level norm into a federal aspiration.
There is a policy tension embedded here. The debt limit concerns paying for obligations already enacted, not authorizing new spending. Using it as leverage can inject risk into the credit system and invite brinkmanship. Moreover, a strict federal balanced budget amendment could be economically rigid, limiting countercyclical borrowing during recessions or emergencies. Most state rules are softened by capital budgets, rainy-day funds, and accounting flexibility; the federal government also bears unique responsibilities for stabilization and defense, and borrows in its own currency. Serious talk about an amendment would therefore need carve-outs and supermajority escape valves, lest it force pro-cyclical austerity.
Huntsmans formulation nevertheless captures a political instinct: voters will tolerate a necessary debt ceiling increase if it is paired with credible, measurable steps to curb future deficits. His conditions read as a test of seriousness rather than a demand for instant balance. As a candidate branded as pragmatic, he seeks to bridge Republican orthodoxy on spending with an aversion to economic chaos. The line works as both policy signal and identity claim, presenting fiscal responsibility as the price of trust while distancing himself from reckless brinkmanship.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Jon
Add to List
