Los Angeles Times

The debt ceiling stupidity turns up again

- MICHAEL HILTZIK Hiltzik writes a blog on latimes.com. Follow him on Facebook or on Twitter @hiltzikm or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

individual­s in charge of U.S. fiscal policy are often thought to be among the most sober people in the world, so you may be wondering why we’re suddenly hearing ideas such as the minting of a trilliondo­llar platinum coin or selling $100 face-value Treasury bonds for $200.

Sadly, the answer is simple: Infantile poseurs in the House Republican majority are threatenin­g to block an increase in the federal debt ceiling. Again.

Republican brinkmansh­ip over the debt ceiling has become almost an annual affair. It regularly causes shudders in the financial markets and warnings that provoking a federal default on Treasury securities — presumably the ultimate consequenc­e of a long-term standoff — will have dire effects for Americans in all walks of life and for global economic stability.

Congressio­nal Democrats have had many opportunit­ies to remove this weapon from the arsenal of ignorant pyromaniac­s in the Republican Party, most recently during the lame duck session in late 2022 when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Inexplicab­ly, they failed to do so, and here we are.

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfiel­d), as well as the other congressio­nal leaders and key committee chairs, that the U.S. debt would reach the statutory limit Thursday, months earlier than had been expected.

At that point, Yellen said, the Treasury would start taking “certain extraordin­ary measures” to stave off a default. These include suspending scheduled payments into government employee pension funds.

Yellen said that once the political impasse ends, the funds would be made whole. That may not be so easy, however.

As a result of a threemonth standoff in 2003, one federal retirement fund permanentl­y lost $1 billion in interest because it had to sell government securities before they matured in order to meet obligation­s to retirees.

Before delving further into the consequenc­es of a debt ceiling standoff and the possible counteract­ions, let’s once again review what the thing is.

The debt ceiling is a federal law that sets a limit on how much debt the Treasury can sell. At this moment, the limit is $31.381 trillion, which was set by Congress in December 2021.

Obviously, what Congress decrees, Congress can undecree. The debt ceiling has been raised by congressio­nal votes more than 91 times since 1960, generally without discussion, by Democratic and Republican majorities and under Democratic and Republican presidents.

After Republican­s took majority control of the House of Representa­tives in 2011, the debt ceiling turned into the raw material for political posturing. Typically, the GOP describes raising the debt ceiling as tantamount to encouragin­g profligate spending.

That’s the case now, when members of the House Republican majority, who have threatened to block an increase in the debt ceiling unless it’s paired with spending cuts, are carrying on as if blocking an increase in the ceiling is the same thing as halting the growth of the federal budget.

That’s false. It has always been false. The politician­s making these statements know it’s false, which makes them liars.

The debt ceiling merely affects how the government pays for expenditur­es that Congress has already authorized. If the politician­s didn’t want to spend the money, all they would need to do is refuse to appropriat­e it. They haven’t done that.

Instead, they’re behaving like credit card holders who have put more purThe chases on their cards than they feel like paying for, and thus have decided to stiff the card issuer in the belief that it will reduce their balances.

Why does the U.S. go through this stupid exercise, every nine months on average?

As I’ve explained many times, the debt ceiling was not originally meant as a limit on the Treasury’s authority to issue federal debt, but rather as a way to give it more latitude to borrow.

The debt ceiling came into being in 1917 when Congress grew weary of having to vote on every proposed bond issuance, which it considered a pain in the neck. So it chose instead to give the Treasury blanket authority to float bonds, subject to a stopgap limitation.

In other words, the limit was never designed to keep Congress from enacting any spending bills or deficitbui­lding tax breaks it wished. Obviously, it has never had that effect, since Congress routinely approves spending that it knows, by simple math, will require more borrowing.

Every time the debt ceiling is held for ransom by Republican­s (it’s never done by Democrats), some pundits warn that this time the hostage takers may be serious and others express confidence that it always seems that way but everyone knows the standoff will ultimately be resolved, so why worry?

The undercurre­nt of complacenc­y arises from the notion that the U.S. has never experience­d the dire effects of a debt ceiling breach. This idea was most succinctly articulate­d by Mick Mulvaney, the fiscal battering ram then-President Trump appointed as budget director, who once said of the consequenc­es of a default on U.S. government debt: “I have heard people say that if we don’t do it, it will be the end of the world. I have yet to meet someone who can articulate the negative consequenc­es.”

Yet the negative consequenc­es are and always have been evident to anyone who has matured beyond the point where they play with their toes.

Then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did so in January 2011, when he cited sharply higher interest rates on borrowings by state and local government­s, credit cards, home mortgages; erosion of retirement nest eggs and home values; suspension of payments for military families and civilian government employees, on Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits; the destructio­n of global confidence in the dollar and Treasury securities.

“Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastroph­ic economic consequenc­es that would last for decades,” Geithner told congressio­nal leaders.

Geithner was speaking in advance of a debt-ceiling impasse that lasted through the summer of 2011 and was finally resolved in August. The economic effects, however, lasted well into 2012. Consumer confidence fell 22% during the standoff and the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock market index, 17%. Household wealth fell by $2.4 trillion, the Treasury calculated.

The impasse was ended by the infamous sequester, which placed harsh spending cuts on the government for 10 years. It should be recalled that the sequester was devised to be so harsh that it would goad Congress and the White House into reaching a sensible budget compromise so it would not be invoked.

No deal happened, so the sequester went into effect, the entire experience resembling the act of staring into the barrel of a loaded shotgun and pulling the trigger to see if it works. The spending cuts inevitably fell hardest on the most vulnerable Americans.

Thousands of low-income residents of public housing were thrown out of their homes. Tens of thousands of 3- and 4-year-olds were barred from Head Start, perpetuati­ng the vicious cycle of poverty and poor educationa­l attainment faced by those families. Unemployme­nt benefits were cut by an average of 15%.

That brings us to the possible remedies. One recurrent idea is for the Treasury to order a $1-trillion platinum coin from the U.S. Mint, deposit it at the Federal Reserve and transfer the value to its own books, thus creating a putative $1-trillion surplus as a cushion against a default.

Legal and fiscal experts have consistent­ly confirmed that this procedure is legal, though it has been the target of scoffing from Yellen and President Biden, from back when he was a senator and President Obama’s vice president. But their objections seem aimed more at the basic gimmickry of the idea, not its legality or fiscal effectiven­ess.

Another idea is for the Treasury to offer “premium” bonds. The debt ceiling applies to the face value of outstandin­g debt, but technicall­y nothing prevents the Treasury from issuing, say, bonds with $100 face values but selling them for $200, say by increasing their interest coupons twofold or more.

For buyers, the economic effect would be the same as buying two $100 bonds and collecting interest at the current rate on both. But from the debt ceiling standpoint, the Treasury would collect $200 but only issue $100 in new debt.

Buyers might purchase $100 face-value one-year Treasury bills, but instead of being promised 4.66% in interest (the current rate as I write), they’d be promised about 9.32%, for which they would pay $200. But only $100 would go on the Treasury’s books as issued debt.

Republican­s have reportedly been working on their own anti-default scheme, which amounts to ordering the Treasury to “prioritize” spending, say by protecting interest payments on the debt and guaranteei­ng Social Security and Medicare payments.

But that leaves a lot uncovered, such as Medicaid, school lunches and food safety inspection­s. Once again, the neediest Americans are in the GOP’s crosshairs.

It’s one thing to decry the proposed remedies as gimmicks, but the debt ceiling itself has been turned into a gimmick. We’ve asked before if this is any way to run the world’s leading economy. To ask the question is to answer it. The time has come to stop running fiscal policy as a cabaret act and end the debt ceiling once and for all.

 ?? JOSE LUIS MAGANA Associated Press ?? REPUBLICAN brinkmansh­ip over the debt ceiling has become almost an annual affair, causing shudders in the financial markets, Michael Hiltzik writes. Above, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfiel­d).
JOSE LUIS MAGANA Associated Press REPUBLICAN brinkmansh­ip over the debt ceiling has become almost an annual affair, causing shudders in the financial markets, Michael Hiltzik writes. Above, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfiel­d).
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States