oopsboom: fruit flies like a banana: clkeagle: Glicky: Perhaps coupling budgeting and the debt ceiling together would be the rational thing to do.

I've *always* wondered if there isn't a legal argument in there somewhere.

Spending bills are authorized by the entire US congress. At a fundamental level, how can it be legally argued that the funding mechanism separate at all? If somehow Congress voted against raising the debt ceiling, and Treasury borrows more anyway to pay for their funding, what precisely would happen?

The debt ceiling is arguably unconstitutional. At the very least the we have laws that mutually self-contradictory. The executive can't follow both laws---it has to pick one. Then I guess the courts will have to sort it out.

yep, this is the argument you are looking for.

the 14th amendment says
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

it is unconstitutional for the US to default.  any law passed by congress which directly causes a default is therefore unconstitutional.
that hasn't happened YET.  but in and on the moment it the clock ticks over that mark i think you have a pretty solid argument that the US doesn't go into default...instead 31USC3101 becomes unenforceable and the limit disappears.  b/c it is, on face, in violation of the 14th at that point since congress has failed to provide some other means of keeping the US's debt valid.