The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Leader:
I am writing in response to your request for an estimate by the Treasury Department of when the statutory debt limit will be reached, and for a description of the consequences of default by the United States.
Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades. Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible. For these reasons, I am requesting that Congress act to increase the limit early this year, well before the threat of default becomes imminent.
As you know, in February of 2010 Congress passed legislation to increase the debt limit to $14.29 trillion. As of this writing, the outstanding debt that is subject to the limit stands at $13.95 trillion, leaving approximately $335 billion of “headroom” beneath the current limit. Because of the inherent uncertainty associated with tax receipts and refunds during the spring tax filing season, as well as other variable factors, it is not possible at this point to predict with precision the date by which the debt limit will be reached. However, the Treasury Department now estimates that the debt limit will be reached as early as March 31, 2011, and most likely sometime between that date and May 16, 2011. This estimate is subject to change depending on the performance of the economy, government receipts, and other factors. This means it is necessary for Congress to act by the end of the first quarter of 2011.
At several points in past years, Treasury has taken exceptional actions to delay the date by which the limit was reached in order to give Congress additional time to raise the limit. These extraordinary actions include: suspending sales of State and Local Government Series (SLGS) Treasury securities[1]; suspending reinvestment of the Government Securities Investment Fund (G-Fund)[2]; suspending reinvestment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)[3]; and determining that a “debt issuance suspension period” exists, permitting redemption of existing, and suspension of new, investments of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF)[4]. Treasury would prefer not to have to engage again in any of these extraordinary measures. If we are forced to do so again, these measures could delay the date by which the limit is reached by several weeks. Once these steps have been taken, no remaining legal and prudent measures would be available to create additional headroom under the debt limit, and the United States would begin to default on its obligations.
As discussed in greater detail below, raising the debt limit is necessary to allow the Treasury to meet obligations of the United States that have been established, authorized, and appropriated by the Congress. It is important to emphasize that changing the debt limit does not alter or increase the obligations we have as a nation; it simply permits the Treasury to fund those obligations Congress has already established.
In fact, even if Congress were immediately to adopt the deep cuts in discretionary spending of the magnitude suggested by some Members of Congress, such as reverting to Fiscal Year 2008 spending levels, the need to increase the debt limit would be delayed by no more than two weeks. The limit would still need to be raised to make it possible for the government to avoid default and to meet the other obligations established by Congress.
The national debt is the total amount of money borrowed in order to fulfill the requirements imposed by past Congresses and under past presidencies, during periods when both Republicans and Democrats were in control of different branches of government. These are legal obligations, incurred under the laws of the United States. Responsibility for creating the debt is bipartisan, and responsibility for meeting the Nation’s obligations must be shared by both parties.
As the 112th Congress turns to this issue, I want to stress that President Obama believes strongly in the need to restore balance to our fiscal position, and he is committed to working with both parties to put the Nation on a fiscally responsible path. This will require difficult choices and a comprehensive approach to reduce the gap between our commitments and our resources. It will require that the government spend less and spend more wisely. The President has already taken important steps, including enacting the savings in the Affordable Care Act; restoring Pay-As-You-Go budgeting; and undertaking a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. The President’s proposals would put us on a path to cut the deficit by more than half in the medium term, and substantially reduce the rate of growth in federal health care costs in the long term. The President looks forward to working with Members of the 112th Congress on additional measures to address our medium- and long-term fiscal challenges.
Because Congress has always acted to increase the debt limit when necessary, and because failure to do so would be harmful to the interests of every American, I am confident that Congress will act in a timely manner to increase the limit this year. However, for the benefit of Members of Congress and the public, I want to make clear, for the record, what the implications of a default would be so there can be no misunderstanding when the issue is debated in the House and Senate.
Reaching the debt limit would mean the Treasury would be prevented by law from borrowing in order to pay obligations the Nation is legally required to pay, an event that has no precedent in American history. Such a default should be understood as distinct from a temporary government shutdown resulting from failure to enact appropriations bills, which occurred in late 1995 and early 1996. Those government shutdowns, which were unwise and highly disruptive, did not have the same long-term negative impact on U.S. creditworthiness as a default would, because there was headroom available under the debt limit at that time.
I am certain you will agree that it is strongly in our national interest for Congress to act well before the debt limit is reached. However, if Congress were to fail to act, the specific consequences would be as follows:
- The Treasury would be forced to default on legal obligations of the United States, causing catastrophic damage to the economy, potentially much more harmful than the effects of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.
- A default would impose a substantial tax on all Americans. Because Treasuries represent the benchmark borrowing rate for all other sectors, default would raise all borrowing costs. Interest rates for state and local government, corporate and consumer borrowing, including home mortgage interest, would all rise sharply. Equity prices and home values would decline, reducing retirement savings and hurting the economic security of all Americans, leading to reductions in spending and investment, which would cause job losses and business failures on a significant scale.
- Default would have prolonged and far-reaching negative consequences on the safe-haven status of Treasuries and the dollar’s dominant role in the international financial system, causing further increases in interest rates and reducing the willingness of investors here and around the world to invest in the United States.
- Payments on a broad range of benefits and other U.S. obligations would be discontinued, limited, or adversely affected, including:
- U.S. military salaries and retirement benefits;
- Social Security and Medicare benefits;
- veterans’ benefits;
- federal civil service salaries and retirement benefits;
- individual and corporate tax refunds;
- unemployment benefits to states;
- defense vendor payments;
- interest and principal payments on Treasury bonds and other securities;
- student loan payments;
- Medicaid payments to states; and
- payments necessary to keep government facilities open.
For these reasons, any default on the legal debt obligations of the United States is unthinkable and must be avoided. It is critically important that Congress act before the debt limit is reached so that the full faith and credit of the United States is not called into question. The confidence of citizens and investors here and around the world that the United States stands fully behind its legal obligations is a unique national asset. Throughout our history, that confidence has made U.S. government bonds among the best and safest investments available and has allowed us to borrow at very low rates.
Failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this position and compromise America’s creditworthiness in the eyes of the world. Every Secretary of the Treasury in the modern era, regardless of party, has strongly held this view. Given the gravity of the challenges facing the U.S. and world economies, the world’s confidence in our creditworthiness is even more critical today.
I hope this information is responsive to your request and will be helpful as Congress considers this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Timothy F. Geithner
JOBHOLDERS HELP ENERGIZE THE ECONOMY
Today in Manufacturing
A steady decline in layoffs is giving the adults who have jobs the confidence to spend more freely, as they no longer worry so much about losing their jobs ... continue
SPENDING EDUCATION DOLLARS WISELY: MISSION BASED FUNDING
Utah Taxpayers Association - Guest Commentary from State Senator Steve Urquhart
Utah’s expensive, unfocused plan for postsecondary education is that everyone, no matter how ill-prepared or uninterested, should go to college, because, well, because it just might work out. Real-world concerns such as likelihood of academic success, market demand for specific degrees, and completion rates are trifling issues. As a result, most of the money that Utahns spend on Utah’s public institutions is wasted. Wasted? Most Utah college students spend time and spend lots of money (theirs, their parents’, and taxpayers’) on Utah’s public institutions, only to eventually drift away without a degree. Without a degree, the investment was wasted – except maybe for some good times and a bit of personal improvement, both of which could have been realized elsewhere for a fraction of the cost. Only the University of Utah manages to have a few more of its students graduate than drift away (56%). Our other public colleges do much worse.
By way of comparison, Brigham Young University, a private institution, graduates 78% of its students. BYU respects and stewards capital much better than Utah’s public institutions do. This tremendous waste of finite and precious public resources is not fair to Utah’s taxpayers, to the students and families that waste money on college without completing a degree, and to all other state programs that could have more beneficially utilized those financial resources. It clearly is time to focus Utah’s efforts and expenditures on post-secondary education. I propose three steps toward improvement.
First, Utah students must graduate high school better prepared for success. When Utah high school graduates go to college, most – yes, most, as in a majority, as in more than half must take remedial math. About a third must take remedial English. That sorry fact hasn’t changed for years. Why not? Because no one has been held accountable for the failure.
That must change. If colleges must do the basic educational training that should have taken place in K-12 education, the student’s school district that didn’t do the work should pay for the remediation. Do that, and K-12 results will improve.
Second, Utah must better prioritize post-secondary expenditures. For a small fraction of the cost of college, Utahns can receive training and certification at Utah’s applied technology colleges. The competency-based programs allow students to get the training they need, get out, and get a job. The completion rate is 66% and rising. The effectiveness of this training, in contrast to the majority failure of college students, suggests that our first line of post-secondary education should be the applied technology colleges. Some 42,000 Utahns benefit each year from applied technology training. Resources must be shifted to the applied technology colleges, so that waiting lists can be eliminated and the market responsive success of these programs can be multiplied.
Third, our colleges and universities must focus their efforts. Make no mistake, our colleges and universities, where focused, do some things exceptionally well. Those things, aeronautics at USU and health technology at the U of U, for example, tend to have better prepared students and tend to be tightly aligned with marketplace needs. However, those things are the exceptions. Mostly, marketplace alignment and student completion rates are not serious concerns. That must change.
If this critique and call for reform seems harsh, let’s see how others view our system of higher education. Forbes magazine recently ranked American colleges and universities. Forbes placed only one Utah public institution in the top 200. The University of Utah came in at number 188, 12 places better than Brigham Young University. No, wait. That was BYUIdaho, the rapidly-improving institution in Rexburg, Idaho, formerly known as Ricks College, which until 10 years ago was a two-year junior college and which, without significant change in Utah, will soon race past our flagship institution in terms of national prestige.
Education matters. The quality and cost of education matter. The ability to translate education into marketable skills matters. Utah can do much better.
Senator Urquhart is the Senate co-chair of the Higher Education
Appropriations Subcommittee.
OSHA PUTS FOCUS ON INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM
Quick Manufacturing News
In a Jan. 5 Web chat to discuss the 2010 fall semi-annual regulatory agenda, OSHA Administrator Dr. David Michaels and staff asserted that the potential Injury and Illness Prevention Program is the agency's highest regulatory priority with 'the greatest impact in terms of preventing workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities.'
Click to continue
CHINA TO CRACK DOWN ON COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
Today in Manufacturing
Beijing has promised repeatedly to stamp out product piracy, but trade groups say enforcement is inadequate and the problem is growing ... continue
U.S. MACHINE TOOL SALES DROP 17.7% IN NOVEMBER
Quick Manufacturing News
The November 2010 U.S. manufacturing technology consumption total was $318.18 million, according to the American Machine Tool Distributors’ Assn. and the Association for Manufacturing Technology. It is the second consecutive monthly decline for the sector, but the annual consumption rate continues to be strong, with a year-on-year improvement of 81.1% over November 2009 sales, and year-to-date sales that are 82.7% higher than the comparable 11-month period of 2009.
Click to continue
EMPLOYERS ADVERTISE FEWER JOBS IN NOVEMBER
Today in Manufacturing
Job openings dipped in November by about 80,000 from October, the latest evidence that employers remain cautious about adding new workers ... continue
No comments:
Post a Comment