Sane conservative economists recognize that not raising the debt ceiling on August 2nd would be a disaster. Sane conservatives understand that the ratings agencies will lower our credit rating if we won’t raise the ceiling, and that we have almost $500 billion in maturing treasuries that we need to roll over in August alone which, as UBS argues, is a problem:
“The mistaken view that interest payments to US Treasury-holders could easily be prioritized, avoiding default indefinitely. This view requires that investors willingly roll over their holdings of Treasury debt and does not take into account the sharp increase in interest rates that may result.”
As Lawrence White explains, and S&P agrees, prioritizing payments is a default:
”…if the federal government delays payment to anyone, then certainly in a common-sense sense, the government has defaulted on its obligations….I believe that the financial markets would not be copacetic [if bondholders were repaid but other creditors weren’t]….They would realize that the government was stiffing one set of claimants who are creditors, and the markets would worry that they might be next.”
Our lenders understand better than those arguing that we can simply cut government spending 30-40% overnight, and lenders understand that voters won’t tolerate having foreign banks get paid while they suffer. Neil Buchanan agrees:
“Foreign holders of Treasuries will understand that it is politically untenable to pay foreigners but not Americans…Can you imagine the firestorm if Americans were told that we cannot afford to pay Social Security recipients, because we have to pay foreign banks and governments first? …No matter how strong the argument that doing so is necessary to protect our credit rating, the bottom line is that the government would be favoring foreigners over Americans. Any foreign investor would know that this is not politically sustainable. They would have every reason to dump our bonds, or at least to require much higher rates of return.”
If interest rates go up, that $500 billion we need to roll over is going to be a lot more expensive. As Barry Eichengreen says, “[e]vidence that the inmates were running the asylum would almost certainly precipitate the wholesale liquidation of US Treasury bonds by foreign investors.”
If I haven’t convinced you that not lifting the ceiling would be hugely problematic, then perhaps these sane conservative economists (and Richard Posner) will:
Gary Becker: “That Congress will have to raise the debt limit this summer is a no-brainer since revenues are not anywhere near large enough to cover government spending. Without a boost in the ceiling, the federal government will be unable to pay its bills, including pay to federal employees.”
Keith Hennessey: “Congress must raise the debt limit. Not doing so would eventually lead to defaulting on Treasury bonds, a potentially catastrophic event.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin – “Yes, Congress should raise the debt limit. Being a good steward of the U.S. credit rating means that it has to pay Obama’s credit-card bill. And it should do so as quickly as possible — on the day it returns from recess.”
And a video from Holtz-Eakin
Glenn Hubbard: “The debt ceiling must be raised – not doing so is irresponsible”
Richard Posner: “No doubt before the political and economic damage becomes too severe, the Republican radicals in the House of Representatives will relent and the ceiling on borrowing will be raised. Before that happens interest rates may rise, and stay higher, because of doubts about the basic competence of American government. Those doubts, plus the higher interest rates they engender, may deepen the current economic downturn, which in turn will reduce tax collections, increase transfer payments, and in both respects increase the federal deficit… Why Republicans prefer flirting with failing to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline to accepting the deal tentatively worked out between President Obama and Speaker Bohner…is a deep mystery.”
I’m trying not to get shrill here, it’s getting hard.

50 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Khal Mojo
I honestly don’t understand where those who argue nothing bad will happen – or it won’t be as bad as others are saying – are coming from. While you’re trying to not be shrill, I’m trying to figure out whether it’s simply ignorance of economics and public policy, willful ignorance or turning a blind eyed with the hope of creating a more conservative utopia post-chaos, selling out to a foreign government(s), or just a bunch of people preparing to cash in somehow.
If we default and someone strikes it rich because of this, there absolutely must be bloody retribution.
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Johnnie Linn
Making an assumption there about what is politically untenable. Untenable means that something can’t happen. A government shutdown is not untenable because it can happen. And it happened before. Nobody seemed to get upset about the possibilitity of some foreigners being paid interest.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Lars
A failure to increase the debt limit isn’t the same thing as a government shutdown. It is orders of magnitude beyond that. Did you watch the Douglas Holtz-Eakin video? It’s only a minute long, and it doesn’t use any hard words or difficult math.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Scott
You misunderstand the word; Ozimek uses it correctly to mean “unsustainable” or “not able to be maintained.” It doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It means that it can, but not forever. I believe he is correct in this. It certainly could occur, but I can’t conceive that state of affairs would last very long even if undertaken by particularly stout-hearted politicians, and it would absolutely end as of the next election, when voters would throw them out en-masse in favor of fiery populists promising to cut off the flow of your tax dollars to them foreign devils instead of grandma and grandpa.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Johnnie Linn
It doesn’t have to be sustainable. It only has to be long enough to show that most of us in the country will not feel any effects of the great majority of federal employees not being at their jobs.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 am
sweatbee
You’re either obfuscating or misinformed. It’s not just debt to foreigners or federal employees. Well it is, but it gets more complicated than that. Federal prisons will be closed, possibly burned to the ground. The Mexican border goes unguarded. Air planes are grounded. Student loan checks stop coming out in time for classes to start mid-August. The FBI goes home for the duration. Your schools shut down. Rural emergency services shut down. A lot of bridges close. River traffic stops, possibly trains. Etc. etc. Every time I look for a voice to convince me that I’m wrong it’s a voice like yours, so I know I’m correct.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 am
Johnnie Linn
sweatbee:
These things didn’t happen the last time the government was shut down. The worst thing that happened last time was that our then President had an unfortunate encounter with a particular unpaid intern.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 11:45 am
sweatbee
I see. Mr. Linn is obfuscating. Otherwise he would admit the difference between the temporary shutdown that occurred under Clinton, when the employees knew that they were going back to work and that backpay would be arriving soon, as opposed to what is being proposed now: a permanent 40% cut to the federal budget.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Johnnie Linn
sweatbee:
Unfortunately for your argument, Buchanan was referring to the shutdown period only, not what happened after, or what would be expected to happen after. He was referring to what debt would be serviced, which would not be an issue during a non-shutdown period.
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
todd
So what would happen to interest rates if the debt ceiling were simply removed altogether?
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Craig
My money is on a short-term extension of the debt ceiling while the gang-of-six-style Grand Bargain is hammered out.
But that’s really the boring question. The interesting question is: what happens if there is no extension of the debt ceiling?
What will not happen: a default on Debt Held by the Public. There’s just no chance. This is Timothy Geithner, people. He would sell his own blood before going down in the history books as the Treasury Secretary who defaulted on the debt.
Probably, he starts by no longer issuing “debt” to the Social Security Trust Fund, in much the same way that he has already stopped investing the Federal Thrift Savings Plan in government securities. There’s “debt,” you see, and there’s “Debt.” And anyone who wants to harrumph about obligations of the government being obligations of the government is welcome to do so, but the fact is that Treasury has already been playing these sorts of games about capital-d-debt and lowercase-d-debt for some months now.
Anyway, that kind of stunt buys a little time for a deal to go through. And if the deal isn’t forthcoming?
I see three options. In descending order of likelihood, I think they are:
(1) The “Constitutional Option.” The White House declares their view that the national debt is an arithmetic consequence of how much Congress has mandated to be collected, and how much it has mandated to be spent. When laws conflict, the most recent law wins out, and the current appropriations legislation trumps the debt ceiling. Republicans scream bloody murder, the markets are somewhat perturbed, but the ceiling ultimately goes the way of the dodo. (So why doesn’t the White House just state this today? Because Obama _wants_ a grand bargain. Obama is not, in fact, an Angry Black Muslim Kenyan Socialist who wants to destroy America. He is, in fact, to the right of every President of the last fifty years except Ronald Reagan.)
(2) Geithner Scrip. As California was obliged to do in their late unpleasantness, the federal government will start issuing IOUs that are debt-but-not-Debt, to the tune of about one-half the value of all Social Security benefits, paychecks, etc., etc. This really hurts people–especially seniors and the poor–and is a huge headache to coordinate, so I think it’s less likely than the first scenario. But I think it’s somewhat more likely than…
(3) One Billion Dollar Platinum Coins Featuring the Image of John Boehner. Because, at the end of the day, grown ups understand what money is, and a loss of prestige for the Dollar beats the hell out of any default scenario that you can imagine. There are other ways of getting here, too, that don’t literally involve stamping platinum coins: the Fed could sign a twenty-year lease on the Lincoln Memorial, that sort of thing. But it comes down to printing money.
Anyway, there are lots of ways out of this pickle, none of them end in a default on the publicly-held debt, and the only question becomes which option or combination of options makes the GOP look most like Newt Gingrich throwing a temper tantrum over his seating assignment on Air Force One.
Eleven-dimensional-chess, friends.
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Johnnie Linn
Craig:
Can you give a cite for the conflict of laws part? Usually that term applies to which jurisdiction’s laws apply to a particular case, when there are two or more jurisdictions. We don’t have that in this case. In common law, i think the earlier claim has precedence, but in admiralty, the later claim has precedence.
Wednesday ~ July 20th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Russ Abbott
No doubt the debt ceiling must be raised. But I don’t like the arguments that if it isn’t and if we don’t pay default on our bond payments, then the bond holders will panic — and, for example, dump our bonds. Everyone knows that those bonds, including interest, will eventually be paid. If anyone offers to sell US bonds at fire-sale prices, there will be buyers lined up around the block.
What is more important is to figure out what mechanically will happen. What will be paid; what won’t be paid; and what will be the mechanical consequences of the non-payments. Certainly, a major reduction in the flow of funds from Washington will have significant economic consequences — no matter who gets paid and not paid. Furthermore, it is fairly automatic that our credit rating will be reduced — and that may force some of our bond-holders to sell their bonds simply because they are required to hold AAA-rated bonds.
Depending on who gets paid and not paid, there will be other consequences. Those should be worked out.
Finally, I think it is reasonable to expect that the stock market will be spooked. It is very easily spooked. So even if the market is not stiffed, it is likely that there will be panic selling.
None of that is good.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 9:45 am
Becky Hargrove
Before all of this happened I had given the Tea Partiers a lot of credit in that yes, solutions needed to be found beyond constantly raising the debt ceiling. But this debacle has exposed the fact that they are willing to let social obligations devolve to definitions of familial obligation that existed thousands of years ago. Whatever people think of entitlement programs, the fact remains that government taking these programs on gave people a kind of freedom to do things in their lives never before possible. Before anyone just blithely lets such social institutions fall away, people really need to think how they would structure economic and social life to keep those freedoms for individual life intact. Otherwise, the descent into social chaos might mean forced familial expectations and lifetime servitude by those not deemed economically viable in the most productive sense.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 9:56 am
Friedman's Ghost
Are their sane liberal economists stating there needs to be restraint in the increase in government spending in short, medium and long-term? Honestly asking…
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 3:53 pm
AnotherMatt
Medium and long term, yes. Most liberal economists are saying there needs to be some more stimulus in the immediate term to offset the drop in aggregate demand, but that it will need to be as temporary as possible and pulled back once the economy gets rolling again, in order to tackle the medium- and long-term debt problems.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Lars
I think it’s pretty much the consensus view among liberal economists that long-term spending needs to be curtailed. I don’t think there’s any such consensus in the short term, mainly because it’s not obviously true.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Lord
” lenders understand that voters won’t tolerate having foreign banks get paid while they suffer”
Which would be the solution to default. Placing priority on debt would pressure Congress to collapse.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Not Paying Entitlements is Also a Default - Keystone Politics
[...] payments would not be seen as a default, but the ratings agencies and creditors disagree. Adam Ozimek explains:Sane conservatives understand that the ratings agencies will lower our credit rating if we [...]
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
cervantes
Why Republicans prefer flirting with failing to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline to accepting the deal tentatively worked out between President Obama and Speaker Bohner…is a deep mystery.”
They want to trash the economy, they think it will help them win in 2012. It’s really that simple.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
sleepydogs
I’m starting to worry that your theory is correct! They are willing to sink the whole ship in hopes that we’ll replace the captain, rather than the crew who blasted all the holes in the side. Many House members seem to believe–if we can trust their rhetoric–that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is basically the same thing as refusing to dig the U.S. deeper into debt with spending. They don’t show any awareness that we’d actually have to spend MORE if we get too close to default, much less actually defaulting.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:41 pm
jcb
exactly! this is why Obama/Dems are at such a disadvantage in the current negotiations. if I had to guess, the final “deal” will invlove the deepest budget cuts without revenues increases that Obama and Reid will tolerate in exchange for a debt limit increase
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Sane Conservatives on the Debt Ceiling | Sleepy Dogs
[...] Some words from sane conservatives on this issue. [...]
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Alice AN
The Tea Party is only for standing up for what it believes. The blame lies with the sane people on the right who choose to ride this monster and with the public who voted them into power (partly by not voting at all). If this ends in Depression 2.0, Americans have no one but themselves to blame. The Tea Party campaigned on exactly what they are currently executing.
It amazes me that anyone thinks plunging us into a depression will swing the country to the right, when even the Tea party rallied against the health care bill by screaming about keeping government out of Medicare. If Republicans crash the current system completely and anger really consumes the mob, it won’t herald a conservative dawn. The public is in agreement about most things: tax rich people more, keep entitlements, enact stricter rules for wall street, and end corporate welfare. I don’t see how the aftermath of the chaos won’t intensify these positions. Fearing restrictive legislative moves from Democrats, the financial industry might have backed the Trojan horse that will bring down their entire stack of cards. I could gloat, because, unlike most Americans, I have other options, but I’m too liberal to relish the human carnage that will result.
As for the sane conservative trying not to get shrill…it’s too little, too late.
Thursday ~ July 21st, 2011 at 4:50 pm
J
Everyone is so clueless about what government debt does and how it functions in a currency sovereign nation. This is honestly the greatest piece of brainwashing ever committed on mankind. This debt ceiling is a political constraint on spending that has never been needed. The US doesn’t even need to issue debt, it does so because of the demand for it, not because it funds anything. Until folks understand this basic, but I admit, counterintuitive paradigm, there can never be any serious progress on what ails this country.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 am
Happy Hour Roundup | Know new
[...] previous budget deals have been quite real, reports Tim Fernholz. Adam Ozimek has a compilation of sane conservatives who tell the truth about the debt limit. And Matt Yglesias has an excellent post on the long-term [...]
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 6:06 am
MP
First, let me make clear that I think the debt ceiling should be raised. Even better, it should be eliminated. I first read the argument from James Hamilton at Econbrowser that have a debt ceiling separate from budget legislation makes no sense. Pass a budget, that implies a change in debt. You want to manage the debt differently, pass a different budget. I don’t like the path of increasing spending we’re on, but this is the wrong way to deal with it.
That said, I a lot of these arguments are nonsense. White says that prioritizing payments is a default “in a common-sense sense”, but that’s not what is in question. You can just as well say that changing the Social Security eligibility age is a default. You might even argue that “closing loopholes” is a default, as it drops a government obligation to let you deduct something from you tax bill. But what’s really in question isn’t “common-sense” default on any obligations, it’s default on debt. In that sense, prioritizing debt payments would, by definition, prevent a debt default.
Further, you’re absolutely wrong to say that S&P agree with White. Their concern is that “a sudden, unplanned fiscal contraction — as a result of Treasury efforts to conserve cash and avoid default absent an agreement to raise the debt ceiling” would have a detrimental and long-lasting” effect on growth. This isn’t good, but they EXPLICITLY put it in a context of avoiding default. They also sound as much concerned about a failure to address the deficit as about the short-term debt ceiling issue.
Finally, while I agree with Buchanan that prioritizing debt payments wouldn’t be politically sustainable, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it would lead bondholders to dump our bonds. Sure, they could assume that this was just a delay before eventual default, but they could just as easily assume it’s a delay before eventual tax increases or spending cuts. As for the idea that prioritization would be favoring foreigners over Americans, so would spending cuts (unless to foreign aid I guess, but we don’t get very far that way) or tax increases (though this has the political advantage of favoring the foreigners over a relatively small number of Americans with a small number of votes, if a large capacity for campaign contributions).
Bottom line, debt default is much more specific than not fufulling obligations in general. Neither is good. But we (as a government) have promised more than we can deliver, so something has to give.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
J
If Obama were smart he’d use the seigniorage option, eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop and expose the Republicans for the frauds they are. I think they know this deficit issue is a fraudulent cause which is why Bachmann and many of the tea party types want to cause a “default”.
If such an event were to occur or even if we were downgraded, there would still be demand for Treasuries. This would have no impact on our borrowing rate. Want evidence? Japan’s been downgraded numerous times in past decade. Their 10 year is almost unchanged. Why? Because the bond market is a parasite of the government debt market, not the other way around. The dog wags the tail, not vice versa.
Friday ~ July 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 am
A Bit on the Debt Ceiling | The American Catholic
[...] August 2nd deadline are playing a very dangerous game. And as the Reading Rainbow guy used to say, you don’t have to take my word for it. // [...]
Saturday ~ July 23rd, 2011 at 11:59 am
The Aug. 2 debt deadline: How ominous is it? | LeftWingPost.com
[...] conservative economists” know that missing the Aug. 2 deadline would be a disaster, says Adam Ozimek at Modeled Behavior. Ratings agencies will lower our credit rating, and we’d face the impossible task of having [...]
Sunday ~ July 24th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Yes, Defaulting on Entitlements is Still Defaulting
[...] payments would not be seen as a default, but the ratings agencies and creditors disagree. Adam Ozimek explains: Sane conservatives understand that the ratings agencies will lower our credit rating if [...]
Sunday ~ July 24th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Peter
I’m quite looking forward to default. An automatic balanced budget amendment? What’s not to love!
As for treasury investors, domestic and foreign, caveat emptor, folks.
Monday ~ July 25th, 2011 at 8:38 am
J
What’s not to love? How about reduced aggregate demand which will cause a double dip recession? When will folks understand how the modern monetary system works?
Monday ~ July 25th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Short Notes « The Weekly Sift
[...] a few conservatives economists are starting to explain to the faithful why the debt ceiling has to be raised. But only the Onion [...]
Tuesday ~ July 26th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Dear Reporters: “Prioritizing” Debt Payments is a Default
[...] and UBS also say prioritizing payments is the same as defaulting. Adam Ozimek, an economist and blogger at Modeled Behavior, explains: Sane conservatives understand that the [...]
Sunday ~ May 20th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Where were the elites? « Modeled Behavior
[...] on Republican politicians making this crazy argument and tell them they are, well, crazy. But as I blogged back then, sane conservative did come out strongly against defaulting. You had Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Gary [...]
Thursday ~ December 13th, 2012 at 3:58 am
how to attract women in the office
Some beneficial elements listed here and truly just didn’t have a clue regarding almost any of this formerly so thank you for that awareness
Wednesday ~ December 19th, 2012 at 5:36 am
www.squidoo.com
Thanks for creating Sane Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling Modeled Behavior, I
actually was looking for something similar and was
happy to discover the info through this post.
Friday ~ December 28th, 2012 at 5:27 am
pick up artist uk
It was a good piece of writing as always pal
Saturday ~ January 12th, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Reputable Conservative Economists Recognize the Danger of the Debt Ceiling | DEBT RELIEF NEWS
[...] are driving analysis. This is really not the case. During the last debt ceiling debate I put together a variety of quotes from reputable conservative economists to show this, and I thought it might be worth bringing them [...]
Sunday ~ March 17th, 2013 at 9:38 am
test website
I believe this web site contains some really good information for everyone . “Timeour youthit never really goes, does it It is all held in our minds.” by Helen Hoover Santmyer
Monday ~ March 25th, 2013 at 3:01 am
susini.Info
Just want to say your article is as astounding. The clarity in your post is just great and i could
assume you’re an expert on this subject. Well with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work.
Wednesday ~ April 10th, 2013 at 12:21 am
Bernard333
My programmer is definitely trying to persuade myself
to move to .net from PHP. we need constantly disliked the move because of the fees.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using WordPress on many websites for about a year and am worried about flipping to
some other platform. we need heard great issues about blogengine.
net. Is definitely there a way I can import all my wordpress information material
into it? Any form of assist would feel really appreciated!
Sunday ~ April 28th, 2013 at 6:07 am
mom teaches teens
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems
as though you relied on the video to make your point. You clearly
know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on
just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
Sunday ~ April 28th, 2013 at 7:05 am
click through the next page
A little bit of care, concern and love will go a long way to make him feel
bound with you. Friendship Collection: a beautiful selection of friendship audio poems to
share with your closest friends. Your mother would be
overwhelmed to find something so beautiful and interesting.
Monday ~ April 29th, 2013 at 12:39 am
Gedichte zur Geburt › Anmelden
As long as poets continue to write poetry new ones will be created to categorize the person’s poems. Choosing to focus on sound as a restriction increases a poet’s
powers of observation in melodic structure and the inherit oral aspects of a poem.
However, believe it or not poems about getting back together actually can be quite powerful when
attracting your ex back into your life.
Thursday ~ May 2nd, 2013 at 8:35 pm
orbs.com
You are so awesome! I don’t suppose I’ve truly read anything like that before.
So wonderful to find someone with genuine thoughts on
this topic. Seriously.. many thanks for starting this
up. This site is something that is needed on the web, someone with a bit of originality!
Tuesday ~ May 7th, 2013 at 12:59 am
Read More Here
Once you have done this, set the burn speed to 4x
and click Burn and wait for it to complete. Aside from the obvious difficulties of pitching so brilliantly in such a
high pressure situation, Larsen’s feat is even more impressive when one considers that the Dodgers had four future Hall of Famers in their lineup: Duke Snider, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella and Pee Wee Reese. Preparing to apply to the dozens of other game development companies for video game jobs will enable you to expand and diversify your list of possible employers, and your chances of getting hired will increase tremendously.
Tuesday ~ May 7th, 2013 at 2:51 am
arfin
And he actually purchased me breakfast simply because I discovered it for him.. smile. So let me reword that:
Monday ~ May 20th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
online buying guide
I drop a comment whenever I like a post on a blog or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the discussion.
I actually do have a few questions for you if you don’t mind.
And, if you are writing on other social sites, I would like to keep up with everything fresh you have to post.
It’s caused by the sincerness communicated in the post I looked at. And on this article Sane Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling | Modeled Behavior. I was actually excited enough to drop a thought
Could it be just me or do some of the remarks come across as if they are written by brain dead visitors?
Could you list every one of all your social pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook
page or twitter feed?