« Postpetition Asset Sales in Chapter 13s--Modification, Not Estate Property | Main | The New Usury »

#PublicDebtIsPublic and #DebtCeilingIsStupid

posted by Anna Gelpern

What could possibly trigger me enough to break a two-year blogging hiatus? A sudden burning desire to consider the difference among budget accountability, debt accountability, and the inane, moronic, irrational, exploding human appendix ****show that is the debt ceiling.

  • Budget accountability is essential. That is why the U.S. Congress authorizes various parts of the U.S. government to do and buy things and, separately, appropriates resources to pay for those things. These resources might come from some combination of three buckets: (1) taxing people/things/activities, (2) selling stuff, or (3) borrowing. The government is and should be accountable for how it fills these buckets (see here for more). But let us consider bucket No. 3, public debt, more closely.
  • Public debt accountability is essential-for Argentina, Japan, Mozambique, Ukraine, and the United States alike. Borrowing binds current and future citizens to pay taxes or forgo public services, if need be, to pay back the debt. At the barest minimum, a government that borrows a bajillion tokens and pledges all of the country's mineral resources to build a golden statue of its president on Mars must face a credible threat of getting booted out of office. #PublicDebtIsPublic
    • Debt accountability takes different forms around the world. In a few countries, the legislature must approve every borrowing in advance. More commonly, legislatures approve annual or multiyear borrowing programs, sometimes subject to treaty or constitutional limits, such as the EU's much-debated treaty debt cap of 60% of GDP for member states. In most countries, there is also reporting to the legislature and/or the public after the fact.
    • But the rationale for debt accountability goes beyond concerns about future taxes and services, in important part because government debt functions go beyond funding the government. U.S. government debt in particular has more functions than most. It is a basic building block of U.S. and global financial systems--U.S. Treasuries are to finance today what carbon is to carbon life forms--and, as a result, has a bigger and broader set of stakeholders. Assets around the world are priced relative to the Treasuries. Banks and institutional portfolios are built on the premise that U.S. government debt is "risk-free." Central banks around the world hold piles of U.S. Treasuries for reasons ranging from self-insurance to currency management.  To be sure, not all stakeholders are entitled to the same degree and kind of debt accountability as the citizens bound to repay the debt. On the other hand, most find ways of holding the debtor accountable, including but not limited to selling the debt, charging higher interest rates, suing the debtor, yelling at the debtor's ambassador, or going to war. (That last one is rare.)
  • The crazy thing about the U.S. debt ceiling is that it achieves NEITHER budget NOR debt accountability. As everyone everywhere has said and written already, budget accountability happens when the Congress votes on the budget, which effectively locks in how much the United States would have to borrow to pay for all that (this is a nice overview). If you wanted to have a debt ceiling, you would have it kick in at budget vote time. And it sort-of-kind-of used to work a little like that in the olden days, when the Congress had to give Treasury permission each time it wanted to borrow. One very useful account describes it as a project finance approach to debt management. You want to borrow money to build a bridge? You need to get the bridge and the debt authorized at the same time.  

Some might say that the debt ceiling nonetheless plays a useful role because, by holding the United States and much of the world hostage, it might force policy makers to confront the big taxing and spending questions that they would not deal with otherwise. The idea that hostage negotiations that risk triggering a cascade of financial crises around the world, and that may be harming U.S. credit now as we haggle, would somehow produce good fiscal policy ... strikes me as bizarre. Also sad. 

But wait, others might say. Isn't this end-of-the-world talk all too much? Hasn't the U.S. Treasury missed payments here and there before, and the world did not end? (Best piece on that history here.) First, finance was smaller then. Second, for a chunk of that history, the Treasuries were more like a flitty radioactive isotope than the carbon of carbon life forms, so the stakes were correspondingly lower for the United States and for the world. But third, what would be the point of testing that proposition? Better debt management? Better budget management? Better government? None of the above? #DebtCeilingIsStupid


Dear, thank you for udating us about "The New Usury".

Good food for thought. Even if the USA technically defaults for some period, the global economy has nowhere else to go. So all will nod and wink and smile and the status quo will continue, IMO. Odd source, but as Lenin observed, every society is three meals away from chaos. So the status quo procession will continue. This in some form will be explained in a cloakroom to the grandstanding "insurgents."

The comments to this entry are closed.


Current Guests

Follow Us On Twitter

Like Us on Facebook

  • Like Us on Facebook

    By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.



  • As a public service, the University of Illinois College of Law operates Bankr-L, an e-mail list on which bankruptcy professionals can exchange information. Bankr-L is administered by one of the Credit Slips bloggers, Professor Robert M. Lawless of the University of Illinois. Although Bankr-L is a free service, membership is limited only to persons with a professional connection to the bankruptcy field (e.g., lawyer, accountant, academic, judge). To request a subscription on Bankr-L, click here to visit the page for the list and then click on the link for "Subscribe." After completing the information there, please also send an e-mail to Professor Lawless ([email protected]) with a short description of your professional connection to bankruptcy. A link to a URL with a professional bio or other identifying information would be great.