PDA

View Full Version : Debt ceiling: More Democrats threaten to vote against raising borrowing limit



AntZ
04-29-2011, 10:22 AM
Debt ceiling: More Democrats threaten to vote against raising borrowing limit


By Peter Wallsten

The Washington Post

Thursday, April 28, 6:30 PM




A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit.

The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.”

Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is “hopeful” that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year.

Months ago it seemed unthinkable that Congress might refuse to raise the borrowing limit. Leaders in both parties agreed that failing to do so would risk a default by the U.S. government, which could send interest rates soaring and cut off Social Security checks, as well as salaries for combat troops.

And although many lawmakers and aides say a bipartisan deal is likely, the insistence on conditions by a small but pivotal group of Democrats suggests that any agreement would almost certainly have to include substantial cuts in the deficit — not just to mollify House Republicans but to satisfy Democrats who could be politically vulnerable on spending issues.

“As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path,” Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), another Democrat challenging the White House, said in a statement his office released this week. “If we don’t take action to reduce our deficit spending, Congress will be facing this same debt ceiling vote in the near term – still with no end to our deficits in sight.”

The debate is likely to dominate Capitol Hill as early as next week, when lawmakers return from recess.

The government is expected to reach its $14.3 trillion debt cap in mid-May. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he can maneuver to avoid a default until early July.

The White House has condemned efforts to attach additional measures to the debt-ceiling issue. Press secretary Jay Carney has called it “a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage . . . a vote on raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation.”

On Thursday, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said legislative leaders in both parties “have been clear that the debt ceiling has to and will be raised to prevent another economic meltdown.” She added that there is also bipartisan agreement about reducing the deficit by trillions of dollars. “If members of Congress act responsibly and try to reach common ground, we can agree to significant deficit reduction without playing reckless politics with our economy,” she said.

Polls show why the debt vote is so difficult for Democrats, who next year are expected to face an uphill battle to retain their narrow Senate majority in an election likely to focus heavily on spending issues.

Just 16 percent of Americans favor lifting the debt ceiling, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey published this month. Nearly six in 10 independents opposed it. Democrats were divided, with nearly half saying they did not know enough to have an opinion.

“If you’re in a red state, if you’re going to be perceived as a moderate, you want to be able to say that you’re for cutting spending,” said Democratic strategist J.B. Poersch, former executive director of the party’s Senate campaign committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) signaled this week that he would be willing to negotiate on the terms of the debt-ceiling legislation. He noted his support for a “deficit cap” that would “prove that we’re willing to do something about the debt.”

Often called a “debt fail-safe trigger,” such a cap has been embraced by President Obama as well, to force tax increases and spending cuts if the nation’s debt as a share of the economy has not stabilized by mid-decade. The White House, however, has proposed this measure separate from the debt-ceiling vote. Republicans oppose a deficit cap, arguing that it would mean an automatic tax hike.

Reid, speaking to reporters on a Wednesday conference call, hinted that a deficit cap could be part of a broad debt deal.

“The White House can speak for themselves, but we’re not going to be drawing any lines in the sand,” Reid said, according to a transcript of the call.

Several Democrats, including Conrad, Udall and Klobuchar, have previously resisted raising the debt ceiling without also addressing the deficit. In 2010, as a condition for their support in an earlier vote to lift the ceiling, they insisted on the creation of a bipartisan panel to examine how to cut the deficit.

Conrad said this week that he would again refuse to back any debt-ceiling extension lasting longer than a year without a deficit-reduction plan.

“I’ve voted for short-term extensions, but I won’t vote for a long-term extension,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I won’t do it now unless we have a plan to deal with this debt, because, at the end of the day, this represents a fundamental threat to the economic security of the United States.”

Conrad is a key player in the spending debate, both as the Budget Committee chairman and as one of the members of a bipartisan group called the “Gang of Six” that is hashing out a possible compromise on a 2012 budget plan.

Some lawmakers are pinning their hopes on the Gang of Six negotiations to produce a possible deficit-reduction plan to be paired with the debt-ceiling vote. The group could release its framework as early as next week.

But Conrad’s two Democratic colleagues in the negotiations, Sens. Mark R. Warner (Va.) and Richard J. Durbin(Ill.), said Thursday that their talks should not be tied to the debt limit.

Warner said the debt limit “is not something we should mess with.”

Durbin said any threat not to raise the ceiling was “playing with fire.” He added that he wants to “make certain there is an honest effort to deal with our long-term debt, but linking the two is problematic.”

Manchin kicked off a statewide tour this week by announcing his support for a GOP-backed bill to impose spending caps. The measure is viewed by some lawmakers as a possible point of compromise in the debt-limit debate.

He has been asking audiences for a show of hands to test support for lifting the borrowing cap, with overwhelming numbers expressing opposition.

“You have to pay your debt, but when you find yourself in a hole, you ought to stop digging,” Manchin said Thursday in a statement from his office. He accused the White House and House Republican leaders of “playing partisan games.”

He added, “Only in Washington would people argue that the responsible thing to do is raise the debt ceiling and add trillions of dollars in more debt, without a real and responsible debt fix.”

Staff writers Ben Pershing and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debt-ceiling-more-democrats-threaten-to-vote-against-raising-borrowing-limit/2011/04/28/AF5KvY8E_story.html

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 01:48 PM
Just 16 percent of Americans favor lifting the debt ceiling, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey published this month. Nearly six in 10 independents opposed it. Democrats were divided, with nearly half saying they did not know enough to have an opinion.

The only respondents who actually answered appropriately were "did not know enough to have an opinion"

Raising the debt ceiling is not the same thing as "adding more debt".

Not raising the debt ceiling would be a choice to default, which would make our situation much, much worse.

Now what is going on here is a complicated game of chicken, to see if the threat of default can be used to rein in deficits.

While I'm in favor of reining in deficits, this is a very dangerous threat to make. It may be that the scale of the problem warrants a threat of this magnitude, but it should make you worry.

Teh One Who Knocks
04-29-2011, 02:00 PM
Not raising the debt ceiling would be a choice to default, which would make our situation much, much worse.

That's not exactly true. While not raising the debt ceiling would cause the chance to default to raise up, it doesn't necessarily mean we will default. All it would mean is the United States government wouldn't be allowed to borrow any more money. They still would have the tax receipts from all of us rolling into the Treasury department and that money would be more than sufficient to pay the interest on the debt. What it would crimp is the rest of the spending in Washington as it would severely limit the 'extra' money they have to spend on things.

FBD
04-29-2011, 02:11 PM
The only respondents who actually answered appropriately were "did not know enough to have an opinion"

Raising the debt ceiling is not the same thing as "adding more debt".

Not raising the debt ceiling would be a choice to default, which would make our situation much, much worse.

Now what is going on here is a complicated game of chicken, to see if the threat of default can be used to rein in deficits.

While I'm in favor of reining in deficits, this is a very dangerous threat to make. It may be that the scale of the problem warrants a threat of this magnitude, but it should make you worry.
Yeahhhhh....because "reduce spending" simply isnt an option...c'mon, pro sports teams do it all the time, see how much talent they can stuff the team with and still come in under the salary cap. Since Obama is such a sports fan, you'd think he'd be aware of this!

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 02:30 PM
That's not exactly true. While not raising the debt ceiling would cause the chance to default to raise up, it doesn't necessarily mean we will default. All it would mean is the United States government wouldn't be allowed to borrow any more money. .

This would cause a default.

The problem with not increasing the debt ceiling is that most of our bonds have relatively short maturities, and have to be "rolled over", that is redeemed and paid back with a new bond.

In the investment world, US Treasury obligations sit in a special place, they're core capital for banks -- not just US banks, but world banks, and for central banks.

If you say "those Treasuries you bought will be redeemed-- only if we can find room under our debt ceiling to do it" then you've busted the position of US Treasury debt, and folks will stop buying them. Folks do not take your IOU if its "IOU but I'll only pay you off it that doesn't worsen my financial condition"

You cannot sell folks "conditional" Treasury obligations, certainly not at the %3 that the US is able to borrow at today. You introduce a question into whether or not the US will pay, and the interest rates on US Treasuries would blow out . . . and interest expense is a big item in our Federal deficit.

Put another way: if you put in place $500 billion in spending cuts, and the interest rate on the debt went up by 200 basis points, you'd have gained nothing.

AntZ
04-29-2011, 02:38 PM
But it's actually O.K. to play political games with the vote!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjg4k4x7FY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjnN_J6wPmk



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7HT4RpvmI

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 02:48 PM
But it's actually O.K. to play political games with the vote!

Sometimes you play chicken. Sometimes its worth it. We need to make some dramatic structural adjustments, and this threat is dramatic.

But when you play chicken, you have to understand "its not just a game"

The stakes here are huge, and the problem is that world financial markets are fragile and unstable. When you introduce some new dramatic experiment into a fragile system, you're running big risks.

FBD
04-29-2011, 02:58 PM
:lol: dude Obama's whole presidency has been has been some new dramatic experiment - but it looks like nobody told these fools that most of these experiments have already been tried numerous times and failed...just like they're failing presently, only with so much less oversight it was allowed to be much worse in the past.

Teh One Who Knocks
04-29-2011, 03:02 PM
Don’t Believe What’s Said About Debt Ceiling
Stan Collender - Roll Call


There is so much misinformation and grossly misleading talk about what will happen if the federal debt ceiling isn’t increased that, before any more unnecessary bloodcurdling language is used that increases everyone’s anxiety, it’s worth taking a few steps back from the edge.

First, not raising the current federal debt limit absolutely will not immediately shut down the federal government. In fact, the federal debt ceiling has virtually nothing to do with whether federal departments and agencies continue to operate. Borrowing is just one of the ways the federal government finances its activities, and not increasing the debt ceiling only eliminates one of them. The talk about the government being shut down if there’s no increase in the debt ceiling when the current level is reached in the next few months is either a gross misunderstanding of how the federal budget world works or a scare tactic. The first is merely unfortunate; the second is absolutely infuriating.

Government shutdowns occur when the appropriation that funds a department or agency isn’t enacted. In fact, unless the Treasury or the Office of Management and Budget informs them, federal departments and agencies likely have no idea about the government’s cash position or where the cash came from when they obligate funds and carry out the activities funded by their appropriation. The agencies and departments are legally required to conduct these activities; gathering the cash to pay for them is a completely separate process.

Second, and again contrary to what some have stated as gospel, reaching the debt ceiling will not automatically lead to a federal default on the nation’s existing debt. That will only stop the government from borrowing more than the current limit and force it to rely on other ways to finance its activities.

Although the comparison isn’t perfect, the situation is similar to what happens when individuals max out credit cards. They don’t stay home with the lights off, gently rocking back and forth in a corner; they find other sources of money or change their activities to match the cash available. That could mean delaying paying a bill, taking cash from a savings account, getting a loan from a family member or friend, waiting for the next paycheck, or selling a car or some other possession. If they make a payment to bring their maxed-out credit card below the limit, they can borrow again, too.

In a letter last week to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) about the debt ceiling, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner mentioned that the federal government has an equivalent to each of these things. What Geithner didn’t mention is that the federal government also has a number of other tactics, such as leasing an asset — the federal equivalent of renting out a room in your home — or significantly slowing down payments to government contractors and others. These additional tactics may not have been used in the past and may be disheartening or even embarrassing to some, but they are available to avoid a crisis.

Third, if a standoff on raising the debt ceiling lasts for a significant amount of time, the alternatives to borrowing eventually may not be enough to provide the government with the cash it needs to meet its obligations. Even at that point, however, a default wouldn’t be automatic because payments to existing bondholders could be made the priority while payments to others could be delayed for months. There’s no way to know, however, what “eventually” means because the government has never had to resort to such extreme cash management practices. It could be months.

Fourth, all of this means that those who think refusing to increase the federal debt ceiling when it is reached later this year will force the White House to accept budget changes will likely find the administration surprisingly unmoved, perhaps for months to come. If the administration is willing to use all of the cash management techniques available to it, the biggest negative reaction will likely come from Wall Street and those whose payments are delayed. Uncertainty in the schedule for auctioning Treasury securities will upset the bond market and it may express its unhappiness both rhetorically and with higher interest rates.

But the confrontation is far more likely to be a war of words than an actual battle over the budget with both sides fixated on blaming the other. That’s why those who have been forecasting an epic political spectacle because of the debt ceiling are likely to be disappointed and frustrated.

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 03:48 PM
Lance,

The Roll Call piece is interesting, and accurate, but incomplete.

What's missing?

The bond market.

What the bond market does with US Treasury obligations is the key. Let's understand the scale we're talking about: roughly $14 trillion in debt.

Today, on that debt, were paying about %3 in interest expense, roughly $400 billion.

What if the interest rate went up by %1 ?

That would be an additional $140 billion a year in interest expense (and that would equal a %10 rise in the deficit)

You can't fool around with a "promise to pay" when your debt is as massive as ours, without running massive risks.

When systems become fragile, you can't tell what shock will send it over the edge, not something you can predict. But what you can say is that the more shocks you inflict, the greater the chance of going over the edge is.

Acid Trip
04-29-2011, 04:10 PM
Lance,

The Roll Call piece is interesting, and accurate, but incomplete.

What's missing?

The bond market.

What the bond market does with US Treasury obligations is the key. Let's understand the scale we're talking about: roughly $14 trillion in debt.

Today, on that debt, were paying about %3 in interest expense, roughly $400 billion.

What if the interest rate went up by %1 ?

That would be an additional $140 billion a year in interest expense (and that would equal a %10 rise in the deficit)

You can't fool around with a "promise to pay" when your debt is as massive as ours, without running massive risks.

When systems become fragile, you can't tell what shock will send it over the edge, not something you can predict. But what you can say is that the more shocks you inflict, the greater the chance of going over the edge is.

And how much does it cost us per year in extra interest once we add another trillion or two to the debt? That's what you're forgetting.

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 04:55 PM
And how much does it cost us per year in extra interest once we add another trillion or two to the debt? That's what you're forgetting.

Simple calculation:

One Trillion in additional debt costs us $30 Billion a year in interest payments

an increase of %1 of the interest rate we have to pay on our debt would cost us $140 billion.

. . . and no one is talking about cutting one trillion in borrowing today. Paul Ryan is talking about cutting spending ten years from now-- and cutting taxes today. Do you think that reduces borrowing? It doesn't for ten years, if then.

FBD
04-29-2011, 05:27 PM
The biggest issue is, the federal government has well exceeded its mandate and is crushing its citizens with the burden of its spending. Until the gov starts trimming down to a feasible size, we're not going to make a ton of headway.

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 06:16 PM
The biggest issue is, the federal government has well exceeded its mandate and is crushing its citizens with the burden of its spending. Until the gov starts trimming down to a feasible size, we're not going to make a ton of headway.

Getting revenues up and getting spending down is _an_ issue. We have to increase taxes, cut benefits, and end foreign wars, simple as that.

But when you have many trillions in debt, making errors in how you handle that debt --- for example, suggesting to creditors that you might not pay in a timely fashion, when that debt is treated as "money good" would be instantly disastrous.

We cannot "fix" anything overnight-- these are structural adjustments that will take a long time to effect, that's true in Ryan's plan, that's true in Obama's.

What we can do overnight is to cause a fiscal disaster by not acting promptly and on the debt ceiling.

Its a worry, because markets aren't predictable. Its kind of like walking around with a heart arrhythmia. You don't know when you're going to drop dead, but saying "let's schedule the surgery for sometime in the Fall, it'll be OK till then" is reckless.

Markets move to their own rhythms, and the question of when the markets freak over US debt politics is unknowable.