白宮和國(guó)會(huì)正在就是否提高或限制美國(guó)的債務(wù)上限展開爭(zhēng)論。債務(wù)上限是指政府可以借款來支付賬單的金額上限。如果他們不能達(dá)成協(xié)議,可能就會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成災(zāi)難性影響。這遠(yuǎn)不是近年來的第一次債務(wù)上限僵局,但專家表示,這次的不同之處在于,議員們正在接近今年6月的最后期限(最早可能引發(fā)違約的日期),這一局勢(shì)非常危險(xiǎn)。
債務(wù)上限是在106年前設(shè)立的,目的是簡(jiǎn)化政府融資,但現(xiàn)在它實(shí)際上已經(jīng)被武器化。這種情況發(fā)生在2011年,當(dāng)時(shí)共和黨控制的眾議院為了減少國(guó)家赤字,在債務(wù)上限問題上對(duì)白宮和參議院的民主黨人采取了強(qiáng)硬態(tài)度。
由于眾議院共和黨人主張全面削減開支,一場(chǎng)如出一轍的僵局正在上演。美國(guó)在今年1月觸及債務(wù)上限,迫使美國(guó)財(cái)政部部長(zhǎng)珍妮特·耶倫開始采取“非常措施”以避免違約。
據(jù)智庫兩黨政策中心(Bipartisan Policy Center)稱,所謂“X日期”(即美國(guó)財(cái)政部現(xiàn)金耗盡的那一天)的確切時(shí)間尚不清楚,不過可能在今年6月初至8月初之間。但耶倫警告說,這也可能最早在6月1日發(fā)生,而共和黨人正在玩火。
“在你開始看到因?yàn)榈却^久而產(chǎn)生的真正后果之前,我們不知道這件事情是否緊急。我們已經(jīng)等得太久了。我們應(yīng)該在采取非常措施之前提高債務(wù)上限。”美國(guó)負(fù)責(zé)任聯(lián)邦預(yù)算委員會(huì)(Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget)的主席瑪雅·麥克金尼斯對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示。該委員會(huì)是一家研究和溝通預(yù)算政策問題的溫和派非營(yíng)利組織。
美國(guó)總統(tǒng)喬·拜登和美國(guó)眾議院議長(zhǎng)凱文·麥卡錫原定于5月12日舉行會(huì)議,以敲定一項(xiàng)妥協(xié)方案,但會(huì)議被推遲到本周,不過離X日期越近,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就越大。
中間派貨幣和財(cái)政政策研究機(jī)構(gòu)布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)(Brookings Institution)哈欽斯財(cái)政和貨幣政策中心(Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy)的政策主管路易斯·謝納告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“債務(wù)上限的力量來自于挾持經(jīng)濟(jì)作為杠桿?!彼a(bǔ)充道,與以往的僵局不同,“這一次,我們似乎更有可能在債務(wù)上限生效之前不采取行動(dòng)?!?/p>
違約將是一個(gè)未知的領(lǐng)域,沒有人知道后果會(huì)是什么,但風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可能非常高。如果政府現(xiàn)金耗盡,它可能就不得不優(yōu)先考慮不同的項(xiàng)目,影響軍人工資和社保福利發(fā)放,并將不再能夠履行對(duì)債券持有人的利息支付義務(wù),從而增加違約風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。全球信貸市場(chǎng)可能受到?jīng)_擊,不確定性可能削弱人們對(duì)美國(guó)金融體系的信心,加劇經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的可能性。
“我們已經(jīng)很脆弱了。我們擔(dān)心的是銀行業(yè)危機(jī),美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)(Federal Reserve)加息——這不是我們需要給經(jīng)濟(jì)施加的東西?!敝x納說?!笆虑楸饶阆胂蟮母环€(wěn)定,更脆弱,而且以一種難以預(yù)測(cè)的方式實(shí)現(xiàn)互聯(lián)?!?/p>
美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)最喜歡的“談判籌碼”
自2001年以來,美國(guó)政府一直處于年度赤字狀態(tài)。在通常情況下,這不是問題,但這確實(shí)意味著政府的大部分支出來自信貸。
根據(jù)美國(guó)憲法,任何借款都必須首先得到國(guó)會(huì)的批準(zhǔn),自1917年以來,債務(wù)上限一直是衡量政府借款額度的標(biāo)志。根據(jù)美國(guó)財(cái)政部的數(shù)據(jù),在1939年國(guó)會(huì)重組美國(guó)債務(wù)后,提高債務(wù)上限就或多或少地成為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)做法。自1960年以來,國(guó)會(huì)已經(jīng)78次提高債務(wù)上限。
但近年來,隨著赤字不斷擴(kuò)大,美國(guó)債務(wù)已經(jīng)引發(fā)共和黨人的不滿。多年來,美國(guó)政府的借款一直在快速增長(zhǎng),唐納德·特朗普政府和拜登政府在新冠疫情期間都借了數(shù)萬億美元用于紓困案計(jì)劃。美國(guó)債務(wù)總額在2022年首次達(dá)到30萬億美元,目前的債務(wù)上限為31.4萬億美元。今年1月,美國(guó)債務(wù)上限已經(jīng)被突破。
鑒于美國(guó)債務(wù)在未來10年將增加多達(dá)19萬億美元,共和黨人呼吁大幅削減開支,作為提高債務(wù)上限的交換條件,盡管這對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)構(gòu)成巨大威脅。
無黨派研究機(jī)構(gòu)美國(guó)預(yù)算與政策優(yōu)先中心(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)的高級(jí)研究員保羅·范德沃特對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“確實(shí)不應(yīng)該使用這一談判籌碼,因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)產(chǎn)生有害影響?!?/p>
今年4月,共和黨控制的眾議院通過了一項(xiàng)法案,該法案將提高債務(wù)上限,條件是設(shè)定未來支出增長(zhǎng)上限、取消免除學(xué)生貸款債務(wù)的計(jì)劃、削減美國(guó)國(guó)稅局(Internal Revenue Service)的新資金,以及在支持新的石油和天然氣項(xiàng)目的同時(shí)取消能源和氣候信貸。
白宮和民主黨控制的參議院都明確表示,該提案已經(jīng)夭折,但這一過程凸顯了債務(wù)上限現(xiàn)在通常被用來引導(dǎo)反對(duì)黨在政策目標(biāo)上作出妥協(xié)。
“(共和黨)正在試圖利用這種威脅來獲得立法杠桿,并將其作為戰(zhàn)略的焦點(diǎn)。”紐約大學(xué)(New York University)的法學(xué)教授大衛(wèi)·卡明曾經(jīng)在貝拉克·奧巴馬政府和拜登政府中擔(dān)任高級(jí)經(jīng)濟(jì)和政策顧問,他告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“這顯然會(huì)帶來非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)?!?/p>
不確定性的代價(jià)
雖然債務(wù)違約的后果可能是災(zāi)難性的,但隨著離X日期越來越近,美國(guó)面臨著另一種風(fēng)險(xiǎn),因?yàn)閲@政府債務(wù)償付能力的不確定性可能會(huì)削弱人們對(duì)金融體系的信心。
預(yù)算和政策優(yōu)先權(quán)中心的范德沃特稱:“盡早采取行動(dòng)將是明智之舉”,因?yàn)槿绻覀冊(cè)诮咏黊日期時(shí)沒有達(dá)成協(xié)議,美國(guó)財(cái)政部的借款成本可能會(huì)上升,聯(lián)邦支出也會(huì)削減。離X日期越近,美國(guó)債務(wù)危機(jī)的許多未知因素也可能使市場(chǎng)更加動(dòng)蕩,他說:“不確定性是有代價(jià)的,我們?cè)浇咏`約(可能引發(fā)),代價(jià)就越大。”
對(duì)于已經(jīng)受到高利率和銀行業(yè)危機(jī)打擊的金融市場(chǎng)而言,違約,甚至是合理的違約風(fēng)險(xiǎn),都可能是災(zāi)難性的。到目前為止,股市表現(xiàn)良好,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)(S&P 500)今年以來上漲了近8%,但有初步跡象表明,投資者開始對(duì)沖他們的賭注。
美國(guó)負(fù)責(zé)任聯(lián)邦預(yù)算委員會(huì)的麥克金尼斯表示:“我們每多等一天,就會(huì)增加市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩的可能性,并由此產(chǎn)生不必要的成本。”
隨著投資者紛紛買入,美國(guó)信用違約掉期的成本在上周觸及紀(jì)錄高位,甚至比墨西哥和希臘等違約相對(duì)普遍的國(guó)家還要昂貴。(購(gòu)買信用違約掉期旨在防止違約造成的損失。)
哈欽斯中心的謝納說:“我認(rèn)為,不確定性造成了一些損害。人們認(rèn)識(shí)到我們的政治制度是如此的不健全,從而導(dǎo)致實(shí)際上有可能出于政治原因而允許某些對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)非常不利的事情發(fā)生?!?/p>
即使債務(wù)上限僵局在近年來幾乎已經(jīng)成為一種常見現(xiàn)象,但目前尚不清楚有關(guān)各方愿意將這場(chǎng)辯論進(jìn)行到什么程度,盡管長(zhǎng)期僵局會(huì)加大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
智庫城市研究所(Urban Institute)的研究員、美國(guó)財(cái)政部的稅制改革負(fù)責(zé)人尤金·斯圖爾勒對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“這實(shí)際上是一場(chǎng)試圖迫使對(duì)方讓步的老鷹捉小雞游戲。”
在兩周前拜登和共和黨人會(huì)面后,麥卡錫表示,他“沒有看到任何新的進(jìn)展”,隨著X日期的迫近,這為潛在的長(zhǎng)期僵局埋下了伏筆。同樣在上周,據(jù)說拜登政府正在考慮自己采取非常措施來解決這一問題,即援引美國(guó)憲法第十四修正案(14th Amendment)。一些法律學(xué)者認(rèn)為,該修正案中一項(xiàng)條款規(guī)定本可避免的違約行為違憲,從而讓拜登政府有權(quán)單方面提高債務(wù)上限。
據(jù)報(bào)道,拜登政府考慮到這一法律基礎(chǔ)不穩(wěn)固,將其作為最后手段。雖然從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看,不斷上升的債務(wù)水平是合理擔(dān)憂,但也有人質(zhì)疑債務(wù)上限是否還能夠起到任何作用,或者是否會(huì)阻礙政府運(yùn)作。在2021年,耶倫特別支持廢除債務(wù)上限,稱其具有“破壞性”。
但根據(jù)法律和經(jīng)濟(jì)政策專家的說法,短期內(nèi),需要解決債務(wù)上限僵局,而且越早解決越好。這種情況持續(xù)的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng),美國(guó)和世界經(jīng)濟(jì)面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就越大。
“很多這些特殊類型的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都是非常具有傳染性的。人們通常甚至沒有想過所有的傳染情況,但其影響廣泛而深遠(yuǎn)?!彼箞D爾勒說。“即使沒有全球經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,人們也會(huì)有這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。他們正在用一種沒有實(shí)質(zhì)性意義的方式來玩游戲?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
白宮和國(guó)會(huì)正在就是否提高或限制美國(guó)的債務(wù)上限展開爭(zhēng)論。債務(wù)上限是指政府可以借款來支付賬單的金額上限。如果他們不能達(dá)成協(xié)議,可能就會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成災(zāi)難性影響。這遠(yuǎn)不是近年來的第一次債務(wù)上限僵局,但專家表示,這次的不同之處在于,議員們正在接近今年6月的最后期限(最早可能引發(fā)違約的日期),這一局勢(shì)非常危險(xiǎn)。
債務(wù)上限是在106年前設(shè)立的,目的是簡(jiǎn)化政府融資,但現(xiàn)在它實(shí)際上已經(jīng)被武器化。這種情況發(fā)生在2011年,當(dāng)時(shí)共和黨控制的眾議院為了減少國(guó)家赤字,在債務(wù)上限問題上對(duì)白宮和參議院的民主黨人采取了強(qiáng)硬態(tài)度。
由于眾議院共和黨人主張全面削減開支,一場(chǎng)如出一轍的僵局正在上演。美國(guó)在今年1月觸及債務(wù)上限,迫使美國(guó)財(cái)政部部長(zhǎng)珍妮特·耶倫開始采取“非常措施”以避免違約。
據(jù)智庫兩黨政策中心(Bipartisan Policy Center)稱,所謂“X日期”(即美國(guó)財(cái)政部現(xiàn)金耗盡的那一天)的確切時(shí)間尚不清楚,不過可能在今年6月初至8月初之間。但耶倫警告說,這也可能最早在6月1日發(fā)生,而共和黨人正在玩火。
“在你開始看到因?yàn)榈却^久而產(chǎn)生的真正后果之前,我們不知道這件事情是否緊急。我們已經(jīng)等得太久了。我們應(yīng)該在采取非常措施之前提高債務(wù)上限。”美國(guó)負(fù)責(zé)任聯(lián)邦預(yù)算委員會(huì)(Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget)的主席瑪雅·麥克金尼斯對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示。該委員會(huì)是一家研究和溝通預(yù)算政策問題的溫和派非營(yíng)利組織。
美國(guó)總統(tǒng)喬·拜登和美國(guó)眾議院議長(zhǎng)凱文·麥卡錫原定于5月12日舉行會(huì)議,以敲定一項(xiàng)妥協(xié)方案,但會(huì)議被推遲到本周,不過離X日期越近,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就越大。
中間派貨幣和財(cái)政政策研究機(jī)構(gòu)布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)(Brookings Institution)哈欽斯財(cái)政和貨幣政策中心(Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy)的政策主管路易斯·謝納告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“債務(wù)上限的力量來自于挾持經(jīng)濟(jì)作為杠桿。”她補(bǔ)充道,與以往的僵局不同,“這一次,我們似乎更有可能在債務(wù)上限生效之前不采取行動(dòng)?!?/p>
違約將是一個(gè)未知的領(lǐng)域,沒有人知道后果會(huì)是什么,但風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可能非常高。如果政府現(xiàn)金耗盡,它可能就不得不優(yōu)先考慮不同的項(xiàng)目,影響軍人工資和社保福利發(fā)放,并將不再能夠履行對(duì)債券持有人的利息支付義務(wù),從而增加違約風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。全球信貸市場(chǎng)可能受到?jīng)_擊,不確定性可能削弱人們對(duì)美國(guó)金融體系的信心,加劇經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的可能性。
“我們已經(jīng)很脆弱了。我們擔(dān)心的是銀行業(yè)危機(jī),美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)(Federal Reserve)加息——這不是我們需要給經(jīng)濟(jì)施加的東西?!敝x納說。“事情比你想象的更不穩(wěn)定,更脆弱,而且以一種難以預(yù)測(cè)的方式實(shí)現(xiàn)互聯(lián)。”
美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)最喜歡的“談判籌碼”
自2001年以來,美國(guó)政府一直處于年度赤字狀態(tài)。在通常情況下,這不是問題,但這確實(shí)意味著政府的大部分支出來自信貸。
根據(jù)美國(guó)憲法,任何借款都必須首先得到國(guó)會(huì)的批準(zhǔn),自1917年以來,債務(wù)上限一直是衡量政府借款額度的標(biāo)志。根據(jù)美國(guó)財(cái)政部的數(shù)據(jù),在1939年國(guó)會(huì)重組美國(guó)債務(wù)后,提高債務(wù)上限就或多或少地成為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)做法。自1960年以來,國(guó)會(huì)已經(jīng)78次提高債務(wù)上限。
但近年來,隨著赤字不斷擴(kuò)大,美國(guó)債務(wù)已經(jīng)引發(fā)共和黨人的不滿。多年來,美國(guó)政府的借款一直在快速增長(zhǎng),唐納德·特朗普政府和拜登政府在新冠疫情期間都借了數(shù)萬億美元用于紓困案計(jì)劃。美國(guó)債務(wù)總額在2022年首次達(dá)到30萬億美元,目前的債務(wù)上限為31.4萬億美元。今年1月,美國(guó)債務(wù)上限已經(jīng)被突破。
鑒于美國(guó)債務(wù)在未來10年將增加多達(dá)19萬億美元,共和黨人呼吁大幅削減開支,作為提高債務(wù)上限的交換條件,盡管這對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)構(gòu)成巨大威脅。
無黨派研究機(jī)構(gòu)美國(guó)預(yù)算與政策優(yōu)先中心(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)的高級(jí)研究員保羅·范德沃特對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“確實(shí)不應(yīng)該使用這一談判籌碼,因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)產(chǎn)生有害影響。”
今年4月,共和黨控制的眾議院通過了一項(xiàng)法案,該法案將提高債務(wù)上限,條件是設(shè)定未來支出增長(zhǎng)上限、取消免除學(xué)生貸款債務(wù)的計(jì)劃、削減美國(guó)國(guó)稅局(Internal Revenue Service)的新資金,以及在支持新的石油和天然氣項(xiàng)目的同時(shí)取消能源和氣候信貸。
白宮和民主黨控制的參議院都明確表示,該提案已經(jīng)夭折,但這一過程凸顯了債務(wù)上限現(xiàn)在通常被用來引導(dǎo)反對(duì)黨在政策目標(biāo)上作出妥協(xié)。
“(共和黨)正在試圖利用這種威脅來獲得立法杠桿,并將其作為戰(zhàn)略的焦點(diǎn)?!奔~約大學(xué)(New York University)的法學(xué)教授大衛(wèi)·卡明曾經(jīng)在貝拉克·奧巴馬政府和拜登政府中擔(dān)任高級(jí)經(jīng)濟(jì)和政策顧問,他告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“這顯然會(huì)帶來非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)?!?/p>
不確定性的代價(jià)
雖然債務(wù)違約的后果可能是災(zāi)難性的,但隨著離X日期越來越近,美國(guó)面臨著另一種風(fēng)險(xiǎn),因?yàn)閲@政府債務(wù)償付能力的不確定性可能會(huì)削弱人們對(duì)金融體系的信心。
預(yù)算和政策優(yōu)先權(quán)中心的范德沃特稱:“盡早采取行動(dòng)將是明智之舉”,因?yàn)槿绻覀冊(cè)诮咏黊日期時(shí)沒有達(dá)成協(xié)議,美國(guó)財(cái)政部的借款成本可能會(huì)上升,聯(lián)邦支出也會(huì)削減。離X日期越近,美國(guó)債務(wù)危機(jī)的許多未知因素也可能使市場(chǎng)更加動(dòng)蕩,他說:“不確定性是有代價(jià)的,我們?cè)浇咏`約(可能引發(fā)),代價(jià)就越大?!?/p>
對(duì)于已經(jīng)受到高利率和銀行業(yè)危機(jī)打擊的金融市場(chǎng)而言,違約,甚至是合理的違約風(fēng)險(xiǎn),都可能是災(zāi)難性的。到目前為止,股市表現(xiàn)良好,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)(S&P 500)今年以來上漲了近8%,但有初步跡象表明,投資者開始對(duì)沖他們的賭注。
美國(guó)負(fù)責(zé)任聯(lián)邦預(yù)算委員會(huì)的麥克金尼斯表示:“我們每多等一天,就會(huì)增加市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩的可能性,并由此產(chǎn)生不必要的成本?!?/p>
隨著投資者紛紛買入,美國(guó)信用違約掉期的成本在上周觸及紀(jì)錄高位,甚至比墨西哥和希臘等違約相對(duì)普遍的國(guó)家還要昂貴。(購(gòu)買信用違約掉期旨在防止違約造成的損失。)
哈欽斯中心的謝納說:“我認(rèn)為,不確定性造成了一些損害。人們認(rèn)識(shí)到我們的政治制度是如此的不健全,從而導(dǎo)致實(shí)際上有可能出于政治原因而允許某些對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)非常不利的事情發(fā)生。”
即使債務(wù)上限僵局在近年來幾乎已經(jīng)成為一種常見現(xiàn)象,但目前尚不清楚有關(guān)各方愿意將這場(chǎng)辯論進(jìn)行到什么程度,盡管長(zhǎng)期僵局會(huì)加大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
智庫城市研究所(Urban Institute)的研究員、美國(guó)財(cái)政部的稅制改革負(fù)責(zé)人尤金·斯圖爾勒對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“這實(shí)際上是一場(chǎng)試圖迫使對(duì)方讓步的老鷹捉小雞游戲。”
在兩周前拜登和共和黨人會(huì)面后,麥卡錫表示,他“沒有看到任何新的進(jìn)展”,隨著X日期的迫近,這為潛在的長(zhǎng)期僵局埋下了伏筆。同樣在上周,據(jù)說拜登政府正在考慮自己采取非常措施來解決這一問題,即援引美國(guó)憲法第十四修正案(14th Amendment)。一些法律學(xué)者認(rèn)為,該修正案中一項(xiàng)條款規(guī)定本可避免的違約行為違憲,從而讓拜登政府有權(quán)單方面提高債務(wù)上限。
據(jù)報(bào)道,拜登政府考慮到這一法律基礎(chǔ)不穩(wěn)固,將其作為最后手段。雖然從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看,不斷上升的債務(wù)水平是合理擔(dān)憂,但也有人質(zhì)疑債務(wù)上限是否還能夠起到任何作用,或者是否會(huì)阻礙政府運(yùn)作。在2021年,耶倫特別支持廢除債務(wù)上限,稱其具有“破壞性”。
但根據(jù)法律和經(jīng)濟(jì)政策專家的說法,短期內(nèi),需要解決債務(wù)上限僵局,而且越早解決越好。這種情況持續(xù)的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng),美國(guó)和世界經(jīng)濟(jì)面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)就越大。
“很多這些特殊類型的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都是非常具有傳染性的。人們通常甚至沒有想過所有的傳染情況,但其影響廣泛而深遠(yuǎn)?!彼箞D爾勒說?!凹词箾]有全球經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,人們也會(huì)有這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。他們正在用一種沒有實(shí)質(zhì)性意義的方式來玩游戲?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
The White House and Congress are fighting over whether to raise or cap the nation’s debt limit, the amount the government can borrow to pay its bills. If they can’t reach an agreement, it could be catastrophic for the economy. This is far from the first debt ceiling standoff in recent years, but the difference this time, experts say, is that lawmakers are dangerously close to a deadline of as early as June that would trigger a default.
The debt ceiling was created 106 years ago to simplify the government’s financing, but it is now effectively weaponized. It happened in 2011, when the Republican-controlled House played hardball with the Democrats in the White House and Senate over the debt ceiling in a bid to reduce the nation’s deficit.
A near-carbon copy standoff is playing out now as House Republicans argue for sweeping spending cuts. The U.S. hit the debt ceiling in January, forcing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to start “extraordinary measures” to avoid a default.
The exact timing of the so-called X-date is unknown, although it is likely to be between early June and early August, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. But it also could happen as soon as June 1, Yellen has warned, and Republicans are playing with fire.
“We don’t know if it’s urgent until you start to see some real fallout from waiting too long. We’ve already waited too long. We should have increased the debt ceiling before we hit extraordinary measures,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a moderate-leaning non-profit organization that researches and communicates budget policy issues, told Fortune.
A May 12 meeting between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to hash out a compromise was delayed to this week, but the closer the country gets to the X-date, the bigger the risk.
“The power of the debt ceiling comes from holding the economy hostage to use as leverage,” Louise Sheiner, policy director of the Brookings Institution’s Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, a centrist monetary and fiscal policy research organization, told Fortune, adding that unlike previous standoffs, “this time, it seems more likely that we’re going to actually not act before the debt ceiling binds.”
A default would be uncharted territory and nobody knows what the consequences would be, but the stakes could be very high. If the government runs out of cash, it might have to prioritize different programs affecting payroll for military members and benefits recipients, and would no longer be able to fulfill interest payments and obligations to bondholders, raising the risk of a default. Credit markets worldwide could be rocked, and uncertainty might undermine confidence in the U.S. financial system, exacerbating the chances of a recession.
“We’re already vulnerable. We’re worried about the banking crisis, the Fed raising rates—this is not something that we need to add on to this economy,” Sheiner said. “Things are shaky and more vulnerable than you might guess, and kind of interconnected in ways that are hard to know beforehand.”
Congress’ favorite “bargaining chip”
The U.S. government has been running on an annual deficit since 2001. Normally, that isn’t a problem, but it does mean a large amount of the government’s spending is from credit.
Any borrowing must first be approved by Congress, according to the Constitution, and the debt ceiling has been a marker for how much the government can borrow since 1917. Raising the debt ceiling became more or less standard practice after 1939 when Congress restructured U.S. debt, and since 1960, Congress has raised the limit 78 times, according to the Treasury.
But U.S. debt has become a grievance for Republicans in recent years as the deficit grew larger. U.S. borrowing has been rising fast for years, and both the Trump and Biden administrations borrowed trillions during the COVID-19 pandemic for relief programs. Total U.S. debt hit $30 trillion for the first time last year, and the current debt ceiling, which was surpassed in January, is set at $31.4 trillion.
With U.S. debt to rise by as much as $19 trillion over the next decade, Republicans are calling for deep spending cuts as a tradeoff for raising the debt limit, despite big risks to the economy.
“It's a bargaining chip that really shouldn't be used because of the harmful effects that it would produce,” Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research institute, told Fortune.
In April, the Republican-controlled House approved a bill that would raise the debt ceiling in exchange for caps on future spending growth and rescind plans to cancel student loan debt, cut new funding for the Internal Revenue Service, and erase energy and climate credits while supporting new oil and gas projects.
Both the White House and the Democrat-controlled Senate made clear the proposal was dead on arrival, but the process highlights how the debt ceiling is now commonly used to steer the opposing party towards compromising on policy goals.
“[The Republican Party] is trying to use that threat to gain legislative leverage and use it really as a sort of a focal point for a strategy. That obviously comes with very real dangers,” David Kamin, a New York University law professor who has held senior economic and policy advisory roles in the Obama and Biden administrations, told Fortune.
The cost of uncertainty
While the consequences of a debt default would likely be disastrous, the U.S. runs another risk the closer it gets to the X-date, as uncertainty over the government’s ability to pay its bills threaten to undermine confidence in the financial system.
“Acting sooner rather than later would be a wise move,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Van de Water said, because of likely higher Treasury borrowing costs and cutbacks in federal spending if we near the X-date without an agreement. The many unknowns of a U.S. debt crisis could also make markets shakier the closer the government gets to the date, he added: “There is a cost to uncertainty, and it grows the closer we get to a possible default.”
A default, or even the legitimate risk of one, could be disastrous for financial markets, which have already been battered by high interest rates and a banking crisis. The stock market is so far holding up well, with the S&P 500 up nearly 8% this year, but there are early signs that investors are starting to hedge their bets.
“With every day that we wait, it increases the chance that it will make the market skittish and that there'll be unnecessary costs associated with this,” the CRFB’s MacGuineas said.
The cost of U.S. credit default swaps, which are purchased to insure against losses from a default, hit a record high last week as investors piled into them, becoming even more expensive than in countries where defaults are relatively common, like Mexico and Greece.
“I think that there is some damage being done by the uncertainty, and some damage being done by the fact that people recognize our political system is so dysfunctional there is actually a possibility something very bad for the economy will be allowed to happen for political reasons,” Sheiner, from the Hutchins Center, said.
Even if debt ceiling standoffs have almost become a common occurrence in recent years, it’s unclear how far the parties involved are willing to take this debate, although a prolonged standoff would magnify the risk.
“It’s essentially a game of chicken trying to force the other one to give in,” Eugene Steuerle, a fellow at the Urban Institute, a think tank, who directed tax reform efforts at the Treasury, told Fortune.
After a meeting between Biden and Republicans two weeks ago, McCarthy said he “didn’t see any new movement,” setting the stage for a potentially lengthy standoff with the X-date looming. Also last week, Biden was said to be considering extraordinary measures of his own to resolve the issue, namely invoking the 14th Amendment, which has a clause some legal scholars say makes an avoidable default unconstitutional, giving Biden the right to unilaterally raise the limit.
Biden is reportedly considering that option as a last resort given its shaky legal ground. And while rising debt levels are a reasonable concern over the long run, questions have also been raised as to whether the debt limit serves any function at all anymore or if it hinders functional government, with Yellen notably supporting the debt ceiling’s abolishment in 2021, calling it “destructive.”
But in the short term, the debt limit standoff needs to be resolved, and the earlier the better, according to legal and economic policy experts. The longer it goes on, the greater the risk to both the U.S. and world economy.
“A lot of these particular types of risks are very contagious. One often doesn't even think through what all the contagions are, but they can be vast and quite extensive,” Steuerle said. “Even if you don't get a worldwide recession you have this danger that people are playing with. And they’re playing with it in ways that just don't make a lot of sense.”