This is a constitutional crisis.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Clinton vetoed a bill to limit debt, not increase it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995%E2%80%9396

Since a budget for the new fiscal year was not approved, on October 1 the entire federal government operated on a continuing resolution authorizing interim funding for departments until new budgets were approved. The continuing resolution was set to expire on November 13 at midnight, at which time non-essential government services were required to cease operations in order to prevent expending funds that had not yet been appropriated. Congress passed a continuing resolution for funding and a bill to limit debt, which Clinton vetoed[1][4] as he denounced them as "backdoor efforts" to cut the budget in a partisan manner.[2]

Having said that it, the debt limit serves no useful purpose especially since 1974 as it only creates "unneeded uncertainty" and has become a political football.

The United States and Denmark are the only two Constitutional Nations with a debt ceiling, the other nations seem to be doing well without one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_ceiling

The United States and Denmark are the only constitutional countries to have legislative restrictions on the incurring of public debt. The Danish debt ceiling is, however, mainly a formality and follows the budgeting and expenditure process and provides ample latitude for unforeseen deficits. It has never created the periodic crises as has the American.[4]

(snip)

A vote to increase the debt ceiling is usually seen as a formality[by whom?], needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by Congress and the President. Earlier reports to Congress from experts have repeatedly said that the debt limit is an ineffective means to restrain the growth of debt.[8] James Surowiecki argues that the debt ceiling originally served a useful purpose. When introduced, the President had stronger authority to borrow and spend as he pleased; however, after 1974, Congress began passing comprehensive budget resolutions that specify exactly how much money the government can spend.[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[29][30]

A January 2013 poll of a panel of highly regarded economists found that 84% agreed or strongly agreed that, since Congress already approves spending and taxation, "a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse fiscal outcomes." Only one member of the panel, Luigi Zingales, disagreed with the statement.[31]

Furthermore, I'm not the only one that believes a debt ceiling should be unConstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment section 4.

So does Bill Clinton as do many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2011


Garrett Epps counter-argued that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority. He called it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased in The New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[94] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them, but the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out the instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations; essentially, to obey the statutory debt ceiling would require usurping congress' constitutional powers, and hence the statute must be unconstitutional.
Former President Bill Clinton endorsed this counter-argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment. He called it "crazy" that Congress first appropriates funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay.[95]