The Debt Limit Cometh!
What with all the birth certificate brouhaha, for a few minutes there we might have forgotten about real problems. Such as what the federal government should do about hitting its debt limit, which is due to happen oh any day now.
Despite the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating from the likes of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and MSNBC's shouting head Lawrence O'Donnell, a failure to boost the nation's credit line won't mean that the U.S. can't meet its payroll or its debt obligations. Far from it.
Here's a paper from Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy and her colleague Jason Fichtner that lays out some plain facts on the matter:
The United States should not consider defaulting on its debt, nor should it put itself in a position where it has to postpone payment to contractors or "manage" other non-debt obligations. Neither, however, should Congress be forced to raise the debt ceiling under false pretenses. By our calculations, the United States has enough expected cash flow (tax revenue) and assets on hand to avoid either of these unattractive options until at least the end of the current fiscal year in September, perhaps even longer….
In fact, write de Rugy and Fichtner, the U.S. has about $2.4 trillion in assets it can part with to cover any shortfalls (they give a rundown of them in the paper). Better yet would be the sorts of institutional reforms, ranging from constitutional amendments to limit spending to BRAC-style actions to cut spending. They detail those too.
And check out Reason's take on the debt limit here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the U.S. has about $2.4 trillion in assets it can part with to cover any shortfalls
You want to sell Yellowstone to Ted Turner, and he's gonna put up fences and "no trespassing" signs everywhere!
*sobs piteously*
It's just going to be a massive crater someday. Might as well unload it while there's still some value.
Seriously, what the hell is the freaking reason anyway that the federal government owns two-thirds of the land between coastal California and the Rocky Mountains?
Most of that land has no real value to the government. I think they do it mostly out of spite.
the United States has enough expected cash flow (tax revenue) and assets on hand to avoid either of these unattractive options until at least the end of the current fiscal year
Say, who says Reason covers only *bad* news?! 😎
The debt limit was certainly not imposed as a means of forcing lawmakers to make difficult decisions regarding spending, and therefore should not be treated as some unmoveable ceiling. Let them raise it when they feel the need to do so, you baboons. We can't have Congress spending its time considering and then voting on every little expenditure.
Let me be clear.
That is expressed well, almost as well as "We don't have time for this silliness."
We can't have Congress spending its time considering and then voting on every little expenditure.
"Wait a minute. There's a cheesecake on here. Who had the cheesecake? I'm not paying for cheesecake if I didn't have any. And what's this, here? Who the Hell ordered the Laphroig, for crying out loud? You guys are incredible; I'm never going to lunch with you again."
How many times did the Tea Party/republicans raise the debt limit under the previous president? It escapes me.
Anyway, if Americans want to prove neo-liberal countries end up destroying themselves just like communist ones, by all means bring on a financial cataclysm that hastens America's decline.
You can get rid of the deficit by ignoring it or, as Ryan of Nazareth's roadmap dictates, just cutting costs without touching revenue (well actually, that plan adds 6 trillion to the deficit, but at least the deserving get tax cuts while the poor will suffer, so it will be good for the moral fiber of the nation). But the wonderful truth is that you still won't get rid of the poor and your structural problems. If you don't spend money on them, the nation will just suffer a different kind of horrible fate. Libertarianism can't save the US at this point.
That's quite a bizarre position to stake out.
The budget for the current year adds over a trillion in debt, nobody has proposed balancing that, nor balancing it next year or any year this decade.
But somehow now is the time to limit the debt ceiling?
This video is spot on with what ITO did for Know-Y.org and Momthink.org. DC needs to stop relying on future generations and tackle this problem now.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.....-questions