Alex Brill, American Enterprise Institute is nutty

His point is lets change the semantics and borrow and spend more. he says:

Because the limit has been increased 10 times in the last decade, it is generally perceived as having no binding consequence on government finance. Nevertheless it is always a difficult vote for Congress, because it is perceived as an endorsement of deficit spending. Raising the limit is usually a partisan issue regardless of who controls the majority.

That is the point, make the debt limit a difficult choice choice.  It isn't Mickey Mouse doing the spending, it is Congress.  He continues:

One more austere choice would be $11 trillion, or roughly 75% of our GDP (and coincidentally the limit in place in 2008). Given that the current level of debt held by the public is $9.3 trillion, setting the limit at either of these levels would avoid the near-term risk of default and ensure that Congress is keeping a watchful and accurate eye on the debt obligations of the nation.

What he is doing is ignoring government to government debt and measuring the rest, with the purpose of giving Congress another $3 trillion in spending and borrowing. He is trying to get Congress to calmly spend a shitload of money and not worry! A staight path to default. He also says:

Even if Congress balanced the budget, the debt limit would eventually be reached.

Somewhere he changes definitions. Accounting used to mean mean a balanced budget implies no borrowing is necessary.

Following up:

But there may not be adequate time for Congress to craft large spending cuts before the limit is reached, likely in or around April.

Normally when Congress hasn't the short term capacity to handle spending then Congress is in default, it is not temporarily distracted, on vacation, or busy in meetings; it is in default.