Republicans Downplay ‘Default,’ Dismiss Debt Deadline

Some GOP lawmakers say White House officials — and global financial experts — are exaggerating the potential impact of missed payments.

An employee counts USD notes at a money change outlet in Jakarta on June 14, 2013.
National Journal
Tim Alberta Michael Catalini
Oct. 6, 2013, 7:45 a.m.

The White House is sound­ing alarms about the fast-ap­proach­ing Oct. 17 dead­line for rais­ing the na­tion’s bor­row­ing lim­it. Fail­ure to do so, Pres­id­ent Obama and Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Jac­ob Lew have warned, could res­ult in a first-ever de­fault on Amer­ica’s debt and trig­ger glob­al eco­nom­ic calam­ity.

But some Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress aren’t buy­ing it.

Not only do some con­ser­vat­ives say Oct. 17 is an ar­ti­fi­cial dead­line — “Nobody thinks we’re go­ing to de­fault on Oct. 17th,” said Rep. Tim Huel­skamp, R-Kan. — but they also are at­tempt­ing to nar­rowly define what would con­sti­tute de­fault.

In in­ter­views with more than a dozen GOP law­makers, the Re­pub­lic­ans re­jec­ted the no­tion that Wash­ing­ton could de­fault on its debt un­less a bor­row­ing in­crease is ap­proved be­fore Oct. 17. For the United States to ac­tu­ally de­fault, these Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue, the Treas­ury De­part­ment would have to stop pay­ing in­terest on its debts — something GOP law­makers claim is in­con­ceiv­able.

“There’s al­ways rev­en­ue com­ing in­to the Treas­ury, cer­tainly enough rev­en­ue to pay in­terest,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “Demo­crats have a dif­fer­ent defin­i­tion of ‘de­fault’ than what we un­der­stand it to be. What I hear from them is, ‘If you’re not pay­ing everything on time that’s a de­fault.’ And that’s not the tra­di­tion­ally un­der­stood defin­i­tion.”

If this sounds fa­mil­i­ar, it’s be­cause it has been Re­pub­lic­ans’ line of at­tack since their debt-ceil­ing battle with Obama in the sum­mer of 2011.

Then, as now, the GOP ar­gues it’s not the debt lim­it that would cause de­fault, it’s Obama. The coun­try would have the funds to pay its cred­it­ors if the ad­min­is­tra­tion would just delay pay­ments to cer­tain agen­cies.

Hop­ing to turn that ar­gu­ment in­to law, Re­pub­lic­ans have touted le­gis­la­tion that would force Treas­ury to pri­or­it­ize which bills it pays, push­ing in­terest pay­ments to the coun­try’s cred­it­ors, as well as to seni­or cit­izens and vet­er­ans, to the front of the line and put­ting everything else second.

The meas­ure makes for sol­id mes­saging — few voters are likely to dis­agree that So­cial Se­cur­ity and vet­er­ans’ dis­ab­il­ity pay­ments should be top pri­or­it­ies — but budget wonks and fin­an­cial in­dustry ex­perts cri­ti­cize the idea.

“I don’t know any ser­i­ous per­son who doesn’t think this will be cata­clys­mic,” said Steve Bell, a former Re­pub­lic­an staff dir­ect­or of the Sen­ate Budget Com­mit­tee and now seni­or dir­ect­or with the Bi­par­tis­an Policy Cen­ter.

The as­sump­tion that the U.S. will hon­or all of its debts — and hon­or them on time — is the found­a­tion for much of the glob­al fin­an­cial sys­tem, Bell ar­gues. So the fun­da­ment­al prob­lem with the Re­pub­lic­an po­s­i­tion is that Treas­ury makes between 3 mil­lion and 5 mil­lion fin­an­cial trans­ac­tions a day, and if the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment starts to pick and choose which it will hon­or, it will land the eco­nomy in chaos.

Many of the world’s lead­ing fin­an­cial ex­perts, who are watch­ing the slow pace of ne­go­ti­ations in Wash­ing­ton with dread, agree.

“The gov­ern­ment shut­down is bad enough, but fail­ure to raise the debt ceil­ing would be far worse, and could very ser­i­ously dam­age not only the U.S. eco­nomy, but the en­tire glob­al eco­nomy,” IMF Dir­ect­or Christine Lagarde said Thursday.

In­deed, while Re­pub­lic­ans and the White House might dis­agree over how to define a de­fault, the world’s mar­kets are likely to see any missed pay­ment as a sig­nal of pro­found fin­an­cial weak­ness in the United States, and re­act ac­cord­ingly.

“It’s just un­think­able,” said Sen. An­gus King, an in­de­pend­ent from Maine. “We don’t have to spec­u­late about this; just go back and look at 2011. See what happened when we even flir­ted with it. Mar­kets went down. Jobs went down. The eco­nomy con­trac­ted.”

Re­pub­lic­ans don’t dis­pute the risks of toy­ing with Treas­ury’s Oct. 17 dead­line. (In fact, some ex­pressed con­cern about scar­ing Wall Street.) Rather, they seem de­term­ined to cor­rect what they view as a blatant mis­con­cep­tion of what truly con­sti­tutes a de­fault on the na­tion’s debt.

“We’re not go­ing to de­fault; there is no de­fault,” said Rep. Mick Mul­vaney, R-S.C. “There’s an [Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget] dir­ect­ive from the 1980s, the last time we got fairly close to not rais­ing the debt ceil­ing, that clearly lays out the pro­cess by which the Treas­ury sec­ret­ary pri­or­it­izes in­terest pay­ments. Tim Geithner un­der­stood that, be­cause the last week­end in Ju­ly of 2011 he was in New York City telling the primary deal­ers that we were not go­ing to de­fault on our debt.”

Mul­vaney even went so far as to say Obama and White House of­fi­cials have been dis­hon­est when warn­ing of de­fault: “If the pres­id­ent wants to lie to the pub­lic, I can’t stop him.”

Con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats do not dis­pute this nar­row defin­i­tion be­ing pushed by the GOP. Rather, they won­der openly as to why Re­pub­lic­ans would even risk de­fault.

“I wouldn’t re­com­mend play­ing Rus­si­an roul­ette with the full faith and cred­it of the United States,” said Rep. Chris Van Hol­len of Mary­land, the rank­ing Demo­crat on the House Budget Com­mit­tee. “The sec­ret­ary of the Treas­ury has giv­en his best es­tim­ate of the time at which it be­comes very risky not to raise the debt ceil­ing. He’s nev­er said that you can be ab­so­lutely pre­cise about these things, but he says the risks are way too high at that point.”

While some Re­pub­lic­ans cast the Oct. 17 cutoff as ar­ti­fi­cial, mem­bers like Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Dave Reich­ert of Wash­ing­ton — who sug­ges­ted the date was “fudged” by the Treas­ury De­part­ment — said law­makers have no choice but treat it like a real dead­line.

Demo­crats con­cede what they cast as a small point: The ac­tu­al date might in­deed fluc­tu­ate de­pend­ing on the gov­ern­ment’s re­ceipts. But that’s not the point, they say.

“I don’t think it mat­ters be­cause it’s the buildup, the lack of in­vest­ment, the ef­fect that it has on the mar­ket,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “I really don’t think we should be mess­ing around with try­ing to out-pre­dict the Treas­ury De­part­ment. When they say that they’ve used all ex­traordin­ary means and that they pre­dict this date will be in mid-Oc­to­ber, I be­lieve them.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4489) }}

Patrick Reis and Stacy Kaper contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
19 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×