Note: this article contains
dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!
In November 2004, lawmakers voted to once again increase the public debt ceiling from $7.39 trillion to $8.18 trillion. December of 2005, as the spending cap neared the limit, Treasury Secretary John Snow told Congress that the government may reach its statutory borrowing limit by mid-February and asked to raise the debt ceiling “as soon as possible.” Since then, Congress has been relatively idle on the issue.
On January 24th, the U.S. government went into technical default according to the government’s own debt watch website.
Economist Dr. Chris Martenson is sounding the klaxons and wondering why it hasn’t hit the financial press yet, saying “But the silence is all the more troubling because there is an unprecedented level of government borrowing on the books for 1Q06 with next 2 weeks (Feb 1st to Feb 9th) an especially busy period of time. An ambitious ~$70-$80b in Treasury paper will hit the market.” He suggests emergency congressional action may be needed to avoid a full-fledged default.
An earlier Bloomberg article states that covering the borrowing limit “would force the Treasury to use unusual measures such as shuffling money among government pension funds to finance operations.” Which is exactly what happened in February 2003 when the nation came close to default but borrowed against the $48 billion in the government pension fund. A passage from an old CNN article puts things in serious context:
Congress would be very unlikely to allow government finances to reach a point where there would be the possibility of an actual default on any part of the national debt, given the effect that would have on the government’s credit rating and future interest levels it would have to pay on its substantial debt.
Between now and whenever Congress finally notices that the government is in technical default, if the funds from shuffling money out of other investments run dry, it’s very likely the U.S. will move from technical default to active default.
However, raising the spending limit doesn’t address the root of the problem, which is that Republicans are just as big of spenders as Democrats, even worse. In contrast, Libertarians have long proposed a constitutional amendment to stop government deficit spending and require balanced budgets.
Update: just for clarity, a “technical default” is a financial jargon term to indicate violations of covenants, which while important (and in this case possibly historic), are not considered defaults in the traditional “not gonna pay the loan” sense.
Also, Kip had some excellent commentary:
The apologists want to have it both ways: they relentlessly highlight and cheerlead and I-told-you-so over the strength of the U.S. economy, but then conveniently forget that when an economy is strong, warning-sign statistics such as the federal budget deficit, the current account deficit, and the national debt ought to be, not “less doomsday,” but “non-doomsday.” A rip-roaring economy should be generating budget surpluses, current account surpluses, and a shrinking national debt. If, when we are doing our best economically, the warning lights are still blinking, then what are we to expect when the economy is not hitting on all cylinders?
I’m as big a fan of supply-side economics as anyone, and I do believe that it’s possibly to “grow your way” out of deficits and debt.
But only when the accelerator isn’t already hitting the floor.
Another Update: I got an email from Chris Martenson, who clarifies his profession and adds some new insight:
If by ‘economist’ you mean someone who has a PhD in the subject from a major university and who works at the world bank, no I do not qualify.
If you mean someone who has spent 5 years studying it with a passion bordering on obsession, I may qualify.
Certainly I took the requisite courses for my MBA, but I have found that the more important aspects that cover the philosophical underpinnings of operating under an unbacked fiat currency system were thoroughly untaught there or anywhere else in my schooling. Further, that Austrian economics, which I find the most intellectually complete and compelling branch, were never even mentioned.
Lately, I have been running an economic seminar series (four part) for my local community. They are free and well attended and cover the basics (what is money? debt? how much is there of each? trends. etc.) and are designed to simply present economic data and information that is relatively hard to come by in the US. The objective is to have people understand that we are facing the possibility of an economic tipping point and that the next 20 years are almost certainly not going to be like the past 20 years if only for demographic and energy related reasons.
So I guess you could say that economics is, in a way, my new profession.
About the technical default. I need to clarify that the Treasury Dept, through various accounting tricks, maintains that it remains under the statutory debt limit. If they didn’t, we’d be in full fledged default, no bones about it.
As such, and as long as the rest of DC goes along with that distinction (which they will), means that nothing will happen. We’ll float along right at the critical boundary and then Congress will pass a new debt ceiling when they must (and do it as quietly as possible).
That said, one possibility that I am keeping a very close eye on is what happens if that process actually stalls for a week or two?
What happens if next week or the week after, when the additional ~$75b of bills/notes/bonds *must* be floated to keep the government cash drawers from running bare, the debt ceiling is not yet passed?
We could see a delay of the bond auctions which could easily translate into a bit of uncertainty in the bond market itself. Should yields begin to climb as a result I would remain vigilant to the possibility of a significant stock market correction, a dollar decline, a bond market decline, or all three.
Given that there are now hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives perched atop the world economic systems, any reintroduction of actual risk into the stock/bond/currency markets could easily lead to some significant financial events. I consider this to be among the main reasons why DC figures it must, and will, the debt ceiling.
All the best,
Dr. Chris Martenson