YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections


Five ways to think about the U.S. debt limit

Using the debt-limit vote as a political football is more than a stupid game; it can cost real money and destroy the fragile economic growth the U.S. is now having.

September 03, 2013|Michael Hiltzik
  • Failing to raise the debt limit in time could cause “irreparable harm to the American economy,” Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, above, warned House Speaker John Boehner recently.
Failing to raise the debt limit in time could cause “irreparable… (Susan Walsh, AP )

Is it that time again?

Syria will be foremost on Congress' mind when it returns from vacation next week, but lurking on the horizon like an ever-present cloud bank will be the debt limit. Treasury officials say the limit, currently set at $16.7 trillion, will have to be raised by mid-October if the U.S. is to avoid a government bond default.

Under George W. Bush the limit was raised seven times by a total of $5.4 trillion, almost always without tendentious debate. In the first two years of the Obama administration it was raised three times, totaling $3.4 trillion, also without kicking and screaming. In 2011 the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, and that's when the trouble began.

This once-routine vote has become a recurrent act of brinkmanship over the last several years. The fundamental issues haven't changed, however. Here's a rundown of how to think about the debt-limit issue, in five easy pieces.

1. There's no real reason even to have a debt limit. The debt limit came into being in 1917 when the idea was to give the U.S. Treasury more latitude to issue debt, not less. Before that, Congress had 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, though not unlimited authority.

The debt limit was never designed to keep Congress from enacting any spending bills or deficit-building tax breaks it wished. Obviously, it doesn't do so today, since Congress routinely passes measures that it knows, by simple math, will require more borrowing. The debt limit became a fiscal pitfall only after 2010 when talk of holding it hostage for political ends became common.

Let's not forget that raising the debt limit does nothing to increase spending; it merely authorizes borrowing for debts already incurred by Congress. If the lawmakers don't want to increase spending, they already have a way to do so — by not enacting spending bills.

2. The consequences of reaching the limit are dire. It's fashionable in some quarters to pooh-pooh the aftermath of a debt-limit breach, as if all the talk of consequences is just political posturing. That's an unwise approach. It's possible that the consequences wouldn't be quite as severe as some Treasury officials suggest, but no sane person could advocate trying to find out just for the jollies.

Here are the dimensions of the fire the U.S. would be playing with if a default occurred, according to the Treasury: Ruining the U.S. government's unblemished history of always paying its debts would instantly raise its borrowing costs, placing a heavier burden on its budget and slashing the value of government securities held by individuals, pension funds and other countries. Government issuance of Social Security checks, Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals, paychecks to military families and vendors would be halted or cut.

The "full faith and credit" of the United States, the preservation of which has helped make the dollar the world's premier reserve currency at great profit to America and Americans, would be impaired, possibly forever. This could cause "irreparable harm to the American economy," Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew warned House Speaker John Boehner last week. Does anyone out there really want to test how much of this would come true?

Even the steps needed to defer a breach can be costly. When the nation hit the debt limit for three months in 2003, the government staved off default through the early redemption of bonds owned by a civil service retirement fund. That cost the fund and its beneficiaries more than $1 billon in lost interest, the Government Accountability Office determined.

3. Social insurance programs are still on the bargaining table, and that's wrong. President Obama has maintained unequivocally that he will not negotiate with Congress over the debt limit. But there's negotiating, and there's negotiating.

This time around, the debt limit is inextricably tied to a couple of other fiscal imperatives: Congress must pass some sort of funding mechanism to keep the government running past Sept. 30 to avoid provoking a government shutdown similar to those in 1995 and 1996.

Additionally, the White House is eager to unwind the sequester — that's the device that got everyone through a debt-limit crisis in 2011, but will force more than $100 billion in economy-sapping budget cuts in 2014. Both these goals require the assent of Congress.

In recent budget talks between the White House and congressional Republicans, changes to both Social Security and Medicare have been proposed.

Los Angeles Times Articles