An article from Michael Grunwald in the latest TIME offers the following assessment of the debt-limit debate:

Traditionally, raising the debt ceiling has been a formality, a chance for the out-of-power party to complain about red ink before borrowing proceeds as usual. But after their midterm victories, Republicans saw the $14.3 trillion ceiling as a perfect bargaining chip to force drastic spending cuts. They also saw a chance to set a political trap for Obama, daring him to make a public push for more debt and fewer cuts.

Without challenging Grunwald’s characterization of the issue, we can point to several crucial problems he identifies.

Problem No. 1: Raising the debt ceiling never should have been a formality. The idea of a ceiling is designed to restrain government spending. It never should be lifted before other alternatives are exhausted. Problem No. 2: No spending cut should be considered “drastic” if it’s necessary to put the government on a more sustainable path. Problem No. 3: A president concerned about the nation’s long-term fiscal health should be interested in making cuts to runaway government spending, regardless of the politics involved. No “trap” should be necessary.