As the current Congress got underway in January, a New York Times report noted that dealing with the debt ceiling would be among the year’s big challenges. “Wall Street analysts and political prognosticators are warning that a perennial source of partisan brinkmanship could finally tip into outright catastrophe in 2023,” the article read.
Nearly all of this was entirely true. Wall Street analysts and political prognosticators — including me — really were issuing all kinds of warnings about the seriousness of the threat. Many, also including me, were also voicing concerns that this might very well be the year in which we see an actual economic catastrophe.
But the part of the sentence that stood out for me was the description of the debt ceiling as “a perennial source of partisan brinkmanship.” A casual reader might see this and think the fight to prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations is just a routine and unavoidable part of the political process — an annual headache the parties try to exploit.
Except, that’s not quite right. In this context, “perennial” was an adjective that conveyed a misleading message.
The Times’ report came to mind this week watching a CNBC segment on the debt ceiling.
Host Joe Kernen challenged the idea that there were “three clean raises” of the debt ceiling during Donald Trump’s term, and Punchbowl News’s Jake Sherman agreed. “A stand-alone clean debt ceiling is dead on arrival,” Sherman said, adding, “In modern times, the debt ceiling is raised with negotiations.”
Except, like the Times’ report from January, that’s not quite right — and the slipup is emblematic of a larger concern.
To be sure, I can think of a great many instances in which I’ve made a comment on the air that I wish I’d worded better, and my point is not to slam the host or the guest, who might’ve used different phrasing if given a second chance at it. But the broader point is worth understanding in more…
Read the full article here