Hitting the national debt limit: What bills would be paid?

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the summer of 2011, when a debt crisis like the current one loomed, President Barack Obama warned Republicans that older Americans might not get their Social Security checks unless there was a deal to raise the nation's borrowing limit.
After weeks of brinkmanship, Republicans consented and Obama agreed to a deficit-reduction plan the GOP wanted. Crisis averted, for a time.
Now that there's a fresh showdown, the possibility of Social Security cuts -and more - is back on the table.
The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate, and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again.
Without an agreement, every option facing his administration would be unprecedented.
It would require a degree of financial creativity that could test the law, perhaps even the Constitution.
It could shortchange Social Security recipients and other people, including veteran and the poor, who rely on government programs.
It could force the Treasury to contemplate selling government assets, a step considered but rejected in 2011. In short, the Treasury would have to create its own form of triage, creating a priority list of its most crucial obligations, from interest payments to debtors to benefits to vulnerable Americans.
"It may be that somewhere down the line someone will challenge what the administration did in that moment, but in the moment, who's going to stop them?" asked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "I pray we never have to find out how imaginative they are."
In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?
In a letter to Obama on Friday, Senate Democratic leaders urged him to consider taking any "lawful steps that ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis - without congressional approval, if necessary."
The White House has resisted that path. It has rejected recommendations that it invoke a provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "Congress needs to do its job."
So what's left if Congress does not act in time?
Technically, the government hit the debt ceiling at the end of December. Since then, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has halted full payments into the retirement and disability fund for government workers and to the health benefits fund of Postal Service retirees.
The Treasury can stop payments to a special fund that purchases or sells foreign currencies to stabilize world financial markets.
Past administrations have taken such steps to buy time awaiting a debt ceiling increase. That happened under Presidents Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. The government restored those funds after Congress raised the debt ceiling.
Those measures and others could keep the government solvent, perhaps as far as early March, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
There are other extreme possibilities as well.
The federal government could sell some of its assets, from its gold stockpile to its student loan portfolio.
"All these things are in principle marketable, and in a crisis you'd get huge discounts on them," said Holtz-Eakin, now head of the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. "They wouldn't be good ordinary business, but you would be in extraordinary times."
According to a treasury inspector general report last year, department officials in 2011 considered and rejected the idea, concluding that gold sales would destabilize the international financial system, that selling off the student loan portfolio was not feasible and that such "fire sales" would buy only limited time.
An idea pushed by some liberals would take advantage of a legal loophole meant for coin collectors and have the Treasury mint platinum coins that could be deposited at the Federal Reserve and used to pay the nation's bills. But the Treasury issued a statement Saturday putting the idea to rest, saying neither the department nor the Federal Reserve believes the law "can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."
Once all efforts are exhausted, then the government would be in uncharted territory.
At that point, the government would continue to get tax revenue, but hardly enough to keep up with the bills. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the federal government between Feb. 15 and March 15 will get $277 billion in revenue and face $452 billion in obligations.
The Treasury would have to decide whether to pay some obligations and not others or to simply pay for one day's bills as it tax revenue rolls in, exponentially delaying payments the longer the debt ceiling is not raised. Under virtually every scenario contemplated, payment of interest on the debt takes precedence to put off a calamitous default.
"I happen to think the triage would be chosen to create the maximum amount of political pressure to break the impasse right away, which would be withholding Social Security checks," said Philip Wallach, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
After weeks of brinkmanship, Republicans consented and Obama agreed to a deficit-reduction plan the GOP wanted. Crisis averted, for a time.
Now that there's a fresh showdown, the possibility of Social Security cuts -and more - is back on the table.
The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate, and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again.
Without an agreement, every option facing his administration would be unprecedented.
It would require a degree of financial creativity that could test the law, perhaps even the Constitution.
It could shortchange Social Security recipients and other people, including veteran and the poor, who rely on government programs.
It could force the Treasury to contemplate selling government assets, a step considered but rejected in 2011. In short, the Treasury would have to create its own form of triage, creating a priority list of its most crucial obligations, from interest payments to debtors to benefits to vulnerable Americans.
"It may be that somewhere down the line someone will challenge what the administration did in that moment, but in the moment, who's going to stop them?" asked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "I pray we never have to find out how imaginative they are."
In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?
In a letter to Obama on Friday, Senate Democratic leaders urged him to consider taking any "lawful steps that ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis - without congressional approval, if necessary."
The White House has resisted that path. It has rejected recommendations that it invoke a provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "Congress needs to do its job."
So what's left if Congress does not act in time?
Technically, the government hit the debt ceiling at the end of December. Since then, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has halted full payments into the retirement and disability fund for government workers and to the health benefits fund of Postal Service retirees.
The Treasury can stop payments to a special fund that purchases or sells foreign currencies to stabilize world financial markets.
Past administrations have taken such steps to buy time awaiting a debt ceiling increase. That happened under Presidents Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. The government restored those funds after Congress raised the debt ceiling.
Those measures and others could keep the government solvent, perhaps as far as early March, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
There are other extreme possibilities as well.
The federal government could sell some of its assets, from its gold stockpile to its student loan portfolio.
"All these things are in principle marketable, and in a crisis you'd get huge discounts on them," said Holtz-Eakin, now head of the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. "They wouldn't be good ordinary business, but you would be in extraordinary times."
According to a treasury inspector general report last year, department officials in 2011 considered and rejected the idea, concluding that gold sales would destabilize the international financial system, that selling off the student loan portfolio was not feasible and that such "fire sales" would buy only limited time.
An idea pushed by some liberals would take advantage of a legal loophole meant for coin collectors and have the Treasury mint platinum coins that could be deposited at the Federal Reserve and used to pay the nation's bills. But the Treasury issued a statement Saturday putting the idea to rest, saying neither the department nor the Federal Reserve believes the law "can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."
Once all efforts are exhausted, then the government would be in uncharted territory.
At that point, the government would continue to get tax revenue, but hardly enough to keep up with the bills. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the federal government between Feb. 15 and March 15 will get $277 billion in revenue and face $452 billion in obligations.
The Treasury would have to decide whether to pay some obligations and not others or to simply pay for one day's bills as it tax revenue rolls in, exponentially delaying payments the longer the debt ceiling is not raised. Under virtually every scenario contemplated, payment of interest on the debt takes precedence to put off a calamitous default.
"I happen to think the triage would be chosen to create the maximum amount of political pressure to break the impasse right away, which would be withholding Social Security checks," said Philip Wallach, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Am I crazy or has there even been a budget offered by Obama since he took office in 2008? I think all we have gotten instead are temporary spending resolutions instead of proper budgets.
Â
Do you know who is loaning the most money to the United States now? It's not China as most believe. It is in fact.... the United States! Yes that's right. The federal reserve is loaning the treasury money so that treasury can print more money. So in fact the debt is being financed by... nothing.
Â
Do you know how much per year we are overspending? 1.5 trillion. We take in about 2.5 trillion in revenue and we overspend that by 1.5 trillion. The higher taxes just approved basically paid for tax breaks that were passed at the same time so will have no positive impact on the debt. The negative impact they will have is further slowing the economy.
Ya, you're crazy. You asked !
 @Shawn Alley He has presented a budget every year. Not saying they were good budgets, but to answer your question he did offer them every year since taking office in 2009.
Who cares? Anything we do is only delaying the Great Adjustment. Let it crash and burn, the sooner, the better. Then we can pick up the pieces and start over.
It is coming to a point that "the full faith and credit" of the United States is about to become a joke, if spending isn't brought under control.   Oh wait, the President says we don't have a spending problem. In one way he is correct, we've had a lot of practice at spending, not so much practice at a balanced budget.
Give me the budget. It might take a while but it will be balanced.
Â
That, or have a constitutional amendment that says NO elected official or bureaucrat will keep his/her job beyond the end of the fiscal year if the budget is not balanced and the debt ceiling has been reduced by 20% from the previous year.
Â
Additionally, politicians and bureaucrats should be held personally responsible when found to have spent foolishly or engaged in "crony capitalism". For every $1000 that cannot be repaid - one year in federal "pound-me-in-the-***" prison.Â
The idea has merit.   If they canât/wonât do the job, weâll find someone who can.   We need to be careful what we ask for though.    It simply canât be done in 1 year.  As you imply (by 20%) it is a 5 year program.   Thatâs more realistic, but probably still ambitious.
I would target both the amount of borrowing (debt limit) and the balance of trade.  The balance of trade should be driven hard; it is a measure (or result) of our collectively spending more than we contribute.    Some of the advances in energy production will help: Twofold.     We could put debt from trade on a different reduction trajectory than that of entitlements or other âinternal programs or reformsâ. Â
Being picky, mathematically a 20% reduction will never go to zero, so we need â from several standpoints â a different measure.   20% the first year might be too much, and towards the end not enough.  Â
It also needs to be decoupled from the way the bureaucratsâ measure.   They see flat as growth.  If you let them measure it, a 20 % reduction might be the same amount of $.  Â
I couldn't even trust them with my household budget. Why do we have to trust them with the nation's budget?
Congress will never voluntarily cut spending. They will play games till the debt is controlling us (which it already is only at a small level).
Â
For that we are doomed.
They need to start with their own wages, they don't need that kind of money to begin with.Â
Congressional salaries will be the last to be cut!
Certainly wouldn't want to consider cutting spending. Â Obama must have his huge bloated military budget to continue waging an otherwise illegal war with his drones bombing people. Â
@axpman you do realize that the defense budget has been shrinking since Obama came into office, right? It's the Republicans (Reagan, Bush's) that bloated the defense budget to astronomical levels by waging wars that weren't needed (Somalia, Iraq, Sending billions to Iran and Pakistan.)
All the bills will be paid. The Republicans will "get" their way as much as they did in 2011 and 2012. The threat of people, for some odd reason, not getting their social security checks is enough to get everyone to make a last minute deal. Posture now, pay later, it's the way of both parties, they need to keep their eyes on 2014 - not 2030.
 @JTesla Can you fill us in on when it will be paid later? I'm curious how you see us paying down 16.5 trillion and counting considering social security, medicare, and medicaid have an estimated 70 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Â
Shame on Republicans for actually trying to contain spending right? I mean trying to do that when Dems want something (a debt ceiling increase) makes no sense right? Perhaps they should try it another time like.... when Dems want higher taxes. Well we gave them higher taxes and what did we get in return? Nothing. Now you propose we give a debt ceiling increase in return for nothing? No thanks.
Â
At any rate I'll ask you again, when do you propose we pay down the debt? Do you even know what the current interest rate is on the debt? It's basically zero. Any idea what will happen to our country when that rate goes to something realistic? It might be educational for you to calculate the interest on 16.5 trillion at say 6% and then work out what that cost is day.
 @Shawn Alley Let me clarify, they, being both parties, are focused on 2014 not any later date. I think that is wrong, but it's simply the nature of the beast.
Â
However, do they have a variable rate loan? I believe that if they cut all spending now they don't have to worry about the interest rate.