Stakes are high in the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling

The last-minute fiscal cliff deal was narrow in scope; President Barack Obama and the Democrats got less tax revenue and far less stimulus spending than they were hoping for, but there weren’t any cuts to entitlement programs either. One can debate whether this bare bones compromise was preferable to…

Qv7kn4ft-1358130796
The possibility of not reaching an agreement on raising the debt ceiling last year had significant consequences, but an actual failure would be far worse. AAP

The last-minute fiscal cliff deal was narrow in scope; President Barack Obama and the Democrats got less tax revenue and far less stimulus spending than they were hoping for, but there weren’t any cuts to entitlement programs either. One can debate whether this bare bones compromise was preferable to a broader grand bargain on debt reduction, but it certainly refocuses attention on the February vote to raise the debt ceiling. Congressional Republicans who were unhappy with the lack of spending cuts in the fiscal cliff deal may decide to play hardball in this next dispute.

Here’s how the debt ceiling works. All federal spending must be authorised by Congress. If the government doesn’t have enough revenue to pay for approved expenditures than the Department of Treasury issues debt to make up the difference by selling government bonds or notes.

The debt ceiling limits the amount the Treasury can borrow. When more funds are needed to cover costs Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Congress isn’t making any novel decisions on fiscal policy by raising the debt ceiling; they’re simply affirming that the government should pay for the budgets that the House and Senate have previously approved. As Atlantic Correspondent James Fallows notes, the debt ceiling “makes exactly as much sense as it would for a family to decide whether to pay a credit-card bill for goods it has already bought.”

Luckily, votes to raise the debt ceiling have historically been uncontroversial. Some members of Congress use the occasion to rail against perceived fiscal irresponsibility, but the thought of allowing the US to default on its debt was considered beyond the pale.

This all changed after the Republican’s sweeping victory in the 2010 midterms. The new crop of Tea Party congressmen were determined to crack down on what they saw as out of control government spending, and they were willing to use any means necessary to do so.

Consequently, the 2011 debt ceiling voted ended up being anything but routine. Republicans threatened to block any increase on the debt limit unless Democrats agreed to dramatic and instantaneous spending cuts.

President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner eventually reached an 11th hour agreement before the borrowing limit was reached, but the damage was already severe.

The prospect of the world’s largest economy failing to pay its debt sent global markets into a panic and left lingering questions about the US government’s reliability. In early August, the financial services company Standard & Poor’s downgraded America’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. And the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that increased borrowing costs as a result of the standoff will cost the US $18.9 billion over the next ten years.

Consequently, there’s a lot at stake in the upcoming debt ceiling vote. The possibility of not reaching an agreement had significant consequences in 2011, but an actual failure to raise the debt ceiling would be far worse.

In spite of the previous turmoil US Treasury bonds are still considered incredibly safe assets. This faith in American credit has led US interest rates to be used as a “benchmark for all other sorts of debt" according to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. An extended debt crisis in which interest rates rose sharply would destabilise a central pillar of the American and world economy.

The government would have cash on hand to continue paying interest on the debt for the immediate future, but doing so would mean defunding nearly all other programs. Government employees would be out of work, most government operations would cease to function, and an enormous amount of money would be sucked out of the economy at a time when the recovery is still fragile.

I remain fairly optimistic that it won’t come to this. The Tea Party’s influence isn’t quite as strong as it was during the last confrontation, and Republican leadership has to realise how disastrous it would be for the government to default on its obligations. Further, the public and business community are not going to look favourably upon politicians who engage in brinkmanship over such a crucial issue.

But, given the dysfunctionality of the US Congress in recent years, you can never be certain of a sane outcome.

Join the conversation

7 Comments sorted by

  1. Neil Gibson

    Retired Electronics Design Engineer

    Borrowing more than a trillion dollars a year is not any kind of policy for an economy to survive. The US economy is a train wreck in progress and I hate to think what will happen when it collapses. It fascinates me that anyone from the Tea Party or elsewhere who questions these disastrous policies is lambasted from the left as some kind of crank! Even the bill to avert the "fiscal cliff" was filled with pork spending for various green industry groups.
    I am reminded of the Victorian English novels depicting the upper classes enjoying their parties and lifestyle while the tradesmen are not getting paid.

    report
    1. Michael Shand

      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      You fail to take into account many many different things.

      For one - the Tea Party are against cuts to defence, the biggest cost in the budget, about half the budget each year.

      So are the Tea Party really out to balance the budget or jst to insult and block progress.

      You may be interested in a Documentary they showed in VICE about the Tea Party and where it comes from and who backs it financially - The idea that the Tea Party are a voice of reason when it comes to balancing the budget is a joke and you have to be seriously disconnected from reality to even think this

      report
  2. Roger Davidson

    Student

    "the debt ceiling “makes exactly as much sense as it would for a family to decide whether to pay a credit-card bill for goods it has already bought.”

    Well, no. A better analogy would be for a family to decide whether to increase the credit limit on its credit card so it can continue the lifestyle it has become accustomed to, or whether it should keep the credit limit as it is and reduce spending.

    To pay or not to pay the credit card bill is another matter altogether.

    report
    1. Luke Freedman

      US election analyst at University of Sydney

      In reply to Roger Davidson

      How to put the US on a sustainable longterm course is certainly a discussion the government should be having. I do think it's worth pointing out though that deficits are decreasing faster than at any point since the end of WWII, and that Obama and Congress have already agreed to $2.4 trillion in budget savings over the next ten years.

      But as to your point, my analogy is more accurate. The debt ceiling isn't about what the US is going to spend on in the future, it's about paying for the things it's already bought. There's nothing fiscally responsible about failing to pay for spending you've already approved whether you're a family with a credit card or the US Congress.

      Your analogy about long-term fiscal planning would be applicable for a discussion about the future budgets of the US. Luckily, with the sequestration set to take effect soon there's a perfect opportunity to have that discussion.

      report
    2. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Luke Freedman

      The administration is still spending like drunken sailors given the billions attached to the "fiscal cliff" bill.
      The spending you are talking about as already approved is using non-existent money . You talk as if approved spending programs cannot be altered by a fiscally sane government.They could reduce payment s across the board. It is only a matter of time before it is goodbye US and hello Greece. The tragedy is that any party wanting to reduce public spending will lose an election as people…

      Read more
    3. Luke Freedman

      US election analyst at University of Sydney

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      What do you mean when you say non-existent money? When the government sells Treasury bonds it gets money in return and then pays it out to people.

      The debt is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed but the doomsday scenarios a lot of people are talking about are crazy. The President and Congress have already agreed to, as I said previously, 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that you need another $1.4 trillion…

      Read more
    4. Ted Stead

      Consultant

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "It is only a matter of time before it is goodbye US and hello Greece" - you're comparing a country which is sovereign in its own currency to one which isn't. They are not remotely alike.

      The US government could choose to spend money into the economy any time it wishes, but instead chooses to constrain itself by pretending it must first borrow the money from the private sector. This is ultimately just corporate welfare, as those banks lending the money get a risk-free return.

      Tytler may eventually be proven right, but at the moment it's the elites, not the majority, who are getting themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

      report