Morning Joe vs. the Barbell

Jan 29, 2013Mike Konczal

Paul Krugman was on Morning Joe yesterday, where he was peppered with questions about why he and other liberal economists aren't obsessed with long-term debt as a more pressing, or at least equally pressing, problem compared to mass unemployment. Joe Scarborough wrote a follow-up editorial implying that Krugman's opinion is isolated among economists without citing any actual economists. In response, Joe Weisenthal created a list of economists of varying backgrounds and political persuasions who agree with Krugman.

The segment focused on the idea that the only way to do stimulus is if we also do long-term cuts at the same time.

Some quotes to give a feel:

Joe Scarborough, 8m20s: "Medicare, Medicaid, health care costs, the defense budget, long-term drivers of a long-term debt... I say you can do two things at the same time."

Ed Rendel, 12m23s, 15m49s: "I don't think any of these things are mutually exclusive... I think we can [invest in infrastructure] while at the same time taking care of the long-term... Simpson-Bowles said we can do both. We can stretch out our debt reduction over a course of time and at the same time do some things that will spur the economy."

Joe Scarborough: "Won't that send a good message to the markets if we say, 'Hey listen, here's the deal. We are going to take care of what we have to do in the short term to get people back to work, but in the long term we are taking care of the long-term structure'?"

This is often referred to as a "barbell strategy" (from a Peter Orzag column). Do stimulus, do long-term deficit reduction, but only if you can do them together. As mentioned by the panelists, this is part of several bipartisan debt reduction strategies. Here's Domenici-Rivlin's Restoring America's Future Plan: "First, we must recover from the deep recession that has thrown millions out of work... Second, we must take immediate steps to reduce the unsustainable debt... These two challenges must be addressed at the same time, not sequentially."

It's weird that nobody on Morning Joe seems to understand the obvious problems with this strategy, so let's make a list.

1. There is no solid economic argument for this. There may be political arguments, as in that's the only way to build a coalition to get legislation through a partisan Congress, but they are just that, political. There's no decent economic argument for why if stimulus is a good idea, and long-term deficit reduction is a good idea, that you need to do both at the same time.

Scarborough's argument that "this would send a good message to the markets" implies that interest rates are a constraint, when instead they've been at ultra-low rates. It also seems to imply that additional stimulus would send the markets into a panic. It is true that if we passed a stimulus program interest rates could rise, but this would reflect the market thinking things were getting better, not worse.

2. The political argument for this is also weak, if only because it was the operative strategy over the past several years and didn't work. President Obama just tried to get some $225 billion dollars in stimulus in the fiscal cliff and looked to be willing to accept cuts in the inflation adjustments for Social Security as part of the package. Republicans turned this down. This stimulus was first proposed a year earlier in his American Jobs Act, which, as he told Congress, would be paid for by offsetting long-term budgets. This was dead on arrival.

And it is easy to see why. You can probably get some agreement on the content of a stimulus package, but to get a agreement on long-term deficit reduction, you would need the GOP to accept some new revenues or clarify what it wants on social insurance. It won't do the first outside constructed scenarios like the fiscal cliff and the latter has yet to happen.

3. As for the short term, alleviating unemployment is the most responsible budget action even though it increases the short-term deficit. Austerity is likely to give us a higher debt-to-GDP problem if it causes a double-dip recession. Our current deficit is so large because so many people are not working; more economic activity would mean more things to tax and fewer stablizers like unemployment insurance to pay for.

As Delong and Summers argue, additional fiscal stimulus in a depressed economy can largely offset its own costs. Or as John Maynard Keynes said in 1933, "It is the burden of unemployment and the decline in the national income which are upsetting the Budget. Look after the unemployment, and the Budget will look after itself."

4. As for the part of the budget that won't take care of itself, President Obama fought an ugly and costly battle to bend the cost curve of health care, in which he was accused of everything from creating death panels to looting benefits of seniors in order to pass them out to his army of Takers. Since he's already paid that price, why wouldn't he wait and see how well Medicare cost saving techniques work?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the "if you want to see full employment again, immediately dismantle some social insurance" to be like a form of ransom. Meanwhile millions of people are suffering needlessly as a result of the lack of action.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Paul Krugman was on Morning Joe yesterday, where he was peppered with questions about why he and other liberal economists aren't obsessed with long-term debt as a more pressing, or at least equally pressing, problem compared to mass unemployment. Joe Scarborough wrote a follow-up editorial implying that Krugman's opinion is isolated among economists without citing any actual economists. In response, Joe Weisenthal created a list of economists of varying backgrounds and political persuasions who agree with Krugman.

The segment focused on the idea that the only way to do stimulus is if we also do long-term cuts at the same time.

Some quotes to give a feel:

Joe Scarborough, 8m20s: "Medicare, Medicaid, health care costs, the defense budget, long-term drivers of a long-term debt... I say you can do two things at the same time."

Ed Rendel, 12m23s, 15m49s: "I don't think any of these things are mutually exclusive... I think we can [invest in infrastructure] while at the same time taking care of the long-term... Simpson-Bowles said we can do both. We can stretch out our debt reduction over a course of time and at the same time do some things that will spur the economy."

Joe Scarborough: "Won't that send a good message to the markets if we say, 'Hey listen, here's the deal. We are going to take care of what we have to do in the short term to get people back to work, but in the long term we are taking care of the long-term structure'?"

This is often referred to as a "barbell strategy" (from a Peter Orzag column). Do stimulus, do long-term deficit reduction, but only if you can do them together. As mentioned by the panelists, this is part of several bipartisan debt reduction strategies. Here's Domenici-Rivlin's Restoring America's Future Plan: "First, we must recover from the deep recession that has thrown millions out of work... Second, we must take immediate steps to reduce the unsustainable debt... These two challenges must be addressed at the same time, not sequentially."

It's weird that nobody on Morning Joe seems to understand the obvious problems with this strategy, so let's make a list.

1. There is no solid economic argument for this. There may be political arguments, as in that's the only way to build a coalition to get legislation through a partisan Congress, but they are just that, political. There's no decent economic argument for why if stimulus is a good idea, and long-term deficit reduction is a good idea, that you need to do both at the same time.

Scarborough's argument that "this would send a good message to the markets" implies that interest rates are a constraint, when instead they've been at ultra-low rates. It also seems to imply that additional stimulus would send the markets into a panic. It is true that if we passed a stimulus program interest rates could rise, but this would reflect the market thinking things were getting better, not worse.

2. The political argument for this is also weak, if only because it was the operative strategy over the past several years and didn't work. President Obama just tried to get some $225 billion dollars in stimulus in the fiscal cliff and looked to be willing to accept cuts in the inflation adjustments for Social Security as part of the package. Republicans turned this down. This stimulus was first proposed a year earlier in his American Jobs Act, which, as he told Congress, would be paid for by offsetting long-term budgets. This was dead on arrival.

And it is easy to see why. You can probably get some agreement on the content of a stimulus package, but to get a agreement on long-term deficit reduction, you would need the GOP to accept some new revenues or clarify what it wants on social insurance. It won't do the first outside constructed scenarios like the fiscal cliff and the latter has yet to happen.

3. As for the short term, alleviating unemployment is the most responsible budget action even though it increases the short-term deficit. Austerity is likely to give us a higher debt-to-GDP problem if it causes a double-dip recession. Our current deficit is so large because so many people are not working; more economic activity would mean more things to tax and fewer stablizers like unemployment insurance to pay for.

As Delong and Summers argue, additional fiscal stimulus in a depressed economy can largely offset its own costs. Or as John Maynard Keynes said in 1933, "It is the burden of unemployment and the decline in the national income which are upsetting the Budget. Look after the unemployment, and the Budget will look after itself."

4. As for the part of the budget that won't take care of itself, President Obama fought an ugly and costly battle to bend the cost curve of health care, in which he was accused of everything from creating death panels to looting benefits of seniors in order to pass them out to his army of Takers. Since he's already paid that price, why wouldn't he wait and see how well Medicare cost saving techniques work?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the "if you want to see full employment again, immediately dismantle some social insurance" to be like a form of ransom. Meanwhile millions of people are suffering needlessly as a result of the lack of action.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Live at Bloomberg View, on The Federal Reserve Transcripts

Jan 28, 2013Mike Konczal

I have a new article at Bloomberg View, titled The Fed Is More Out of It Than You Thought It Was. It's about the recently released Federal Reserve transcripts from 2007, and what they say about where the Fed was and wasn't looking when it came to weakness in the economy. It's also implicitly about coverage of the economic crisis that are overtly focused on the financial sector, relevant again in all the new TARP retrospectives that are out there. I hope you check it out.

I have a new article at Bloomberg View, titled The Fed Is More Out of It Than You Thought It Was. It's about the recently released Federal Reserve transcripts from 2007, and what they say about where the Fed was and wasn't looking when it came to weakness in the economy. It's also implicitly about coverage of the economic crisis that are overtly focused on the financial sector, relevant again in all the new TARP retrospectives that are out there. I hope you check it out.

Share This

No, the 90 Percent Debt Threshold Hasn't Been Proven

Jan 28, 2013Mike Konczal

The deficit hawks at the Washington Post editorial board are worried. They are worried that the deficit is falling and the debt-to-GDP ratio is leveling off as a result of the numerous cuts and tax increases implemented over the past two years. Liberals know this and are starting to push back, either claiming that the deficit is coming down too quickly or arguing that the main medium-term deficit issues are taken care of and we should focus more on unemployment and other non-budget issues while implementing Obamacare reforms well. The CBPP has been leading the charge on this, noting various levels at which debt as a percent of GDP would level off in the following graphic:

The editorial focuses on the debt-to-GDP ratio leveling out too close to a 90 percent threshold. The writers also claim that there is a well-defined and well-established 90 percent threshold over which our economy will suffer. They write, "The CBPP analysis assumes steady economic growth and no war. If that’s even slightly off, debt-to-GDP could keep rising — and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth." This 90 percent threshold was proposed by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their 2010 article "Growth in a Time of Debt" (GITD). They found that economies with public debt over 90 percent of debt-to-GDP grew more slowly than other countries.

It's always tough to figure out where consensus among economists lies. But economists don't "regard" the 90 percent mark as definitive; in fact, this study and its claim have never even been peer reviewed by an economics journal. [1]

I don't bring this up because something that's peer reviewed should automatically be accepted as definitive, or that credentials are everything, or that only Very Serious Economics matter. (That's a bad rule in general, and as an economics blogger that would be a doubly insane claim.) I bring it up only because the public should understand that the 90 percent threshold couldn't survive peer review for a very important reason: It's impossible to seperate the cause and effect here given the evidence collected. Policymakers and deficit hawks should reconsider if they're running under the assumption that this is a well-established rule.

Remember that growth that is suprisingly slow will increase the debt-to-GDP ratio relative to expectations by definition. And periods of slower growth will lead to higher debt levels. That doesn't mean that those debt loads caused the slower growth -- in these cases it would be just the opposite. Reinhart and Rogoff present no techniques, tools or theory to break this problem down and determine what is the cause and what is the effect in this debt versus GDP relationship.

As John Irons and Josh Bivens of EPI noted in their review of the GITD paper (my bold):

First, the theory that governs the relation between debt and growth suggests strongly that causality runs more firmly from slower growth to higher debt loads. Slow economic growth, and especially growth that is slower than policy makers’ expectations, will lead to higher levels of debt as revenues fall and as automatic-stabilizer spending increases... Importantly, the timing matters. Persistent slow growth will yield high debt levels, and will thus mechanically yield to contemporaneous combinations of high debt and slow growth...

In short, the statistical evidence strongly suggests that the causality runs from growth to debt, and not the reverse. Given that theory and preliminary investigation agree in this case, it seems clear that the GITD analysis—which looks only at contemporaneous levels of debt and growth—is much more likely to capture causal relationships running from slow growth to high debt. This means there is very little reason for policy makers to think that there is a high-debt threshold that acts to slow growth.

As one economist wrote me in an email, "it is likely unpublishable in a top journal due to the fact that they have not developed any techniques to tease out causality in what are suggestive but non-conclusive correlations. For this work to be the *one* thing that politicians decide to take from economics is horrible."

You can think that lower debt is better than higher debt ratios. You can be worried about interest payments, even though those are at a 30-year low and projected to go back to historical averages. But there isn't a great reason to believe that that leveling out at 80 versus 90 percent of GDP matters that much when we have mass unemployment, low interest rates, and inflation in check. Growth matters just as much as GDP for this calculation, and it's a terrible deal if we sacrifice either immediate growth or long-term investments in an attempt to bring down this debt-to-GDP ratio. There isn't good evidence that the levels matter that much if the plan works, and it is likely the plan won't work. Weakening growth is likely to balloon that deficit as well.

It's important to get a sense of where the deficit hawks will focus next because, if it is true that the deficit wars are coming to an end, all those giant deficit hawk groups are still funded through the apocalypse. Their mission will be that of Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters: "Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff." How will they keep busy and justify their taxpayer-subsidized funding? We may have just gotten an important glimpse.

[1] According to their C.V.s, it's been published in the May 2010 issue of the American Economic Review, which is a special non-reviewed "papers and proceedings" issue.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

The deficit hawks at the Washington Post editorial board are worried. They are worried that the deficit is falling and the debt-to-GDP ratio is leveling off as a result of the numerous cuts and tax increases implemented over the past two years. Liberals know this and are starting to push back, either claiming that the deficit is coming down too quickly or arguing that the main medium-term deficit issues are taken care of and we should focus more on unemployment and other non-budget issues while implementing Obamacare reforms well. The CBPP has been leading the charge on this, noting various levels at which debt as a percent of GDP would level off in the following graphic:

The editorial focuses on the debt-to-GDP ratio leveling out too close to a 90 percent threshold. The writers also claim that there is a well-defined and well-established 90 percent threshold over which our economy will suffer. They write, "The CBPP analysis assumes steady economic growth and no war. If that’s even slightly off, debt-to-GDP could keep rising — and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth." This 90 percent threshold was proposed by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their 2010 article "Growth in a Time of Debt" (GITD). They found that economies with public debt over 90 percent of debt-to-GDP grew more slowly than other countries.

It's always tough to figure out where consensus among economists lies. But economists don't "regard" the 90 percent mark as definitive; in fact, this study and its claim have never even been peer reviewed by an economics journal. [1]

I don't bring this up because something that's peer reviewed should automatically be accepted as definitive, or that credentials are everything, or that only Very Serious Economics matter. (That's a bad rule in general, and as an economics blogger that would be a doubly insane claim.) I bring it up only because the public should understand that the 90 percent threshold couldn't survive peer review for a very important reason: It's impossible to seperate the cause and effect here given the evidence collected. Policymakers and deficit hawks should reconsider if they're running under the assumption that this is a well-established rule.

Remember that growth that is suprisingly slow will increase the debt-to-GDP ratio relative to expectations by definition. And periods of slower growth will lead to higher debt levels. That doesn't mean that those debt loads caused the slower growth -- in these cases it would be just the opposite. Reinhart and Rogoff present no techniques, tools or theory to break this problem down and determine what is the cause and what is the effect in this debt versus GDP relationship.

As John Irons and Josh Bivens of EPI noted in their review of the GITD paper (my bold):

First, the theory that governs the relation between debt and growth suggests strongly that causality runs more firmly from slower growth to higher debt loads. Slow economic growth, and especially growth that is slower than policy makers’ expectations, will lead to higher levels of debt as revenues fall and as automatic-stabilizer spending increases... Importantly, the timing matters. Persistent slow growth will yield high debt levels, and will thus mechanically yield to contemporaneous combinations of high debt and slow growth...

In short, the statistical evidence strongly suggests that the causality runs from growth to debt, and not the reverse. Given that theory and preliminary investigation agree in this case, it seems clear that the GITD analysis—which looks only at contemporaneous levels of debt and growth—is much more likely to capture causal relationships running from slow growth to high debt. This means there is very little reason for policy makers to think that there is a high-debt threshold that acts to slow growth.

As one economist wrote me in an email, "it is likely unpublishable in a top journal due to the fact that they have not developed any techniques to tease out causality in what are suggestive but non-conclusive correlations. For this work to be the *one* thing that politicians decide to take from economics is horrible."

You can think that lower debt is better than higher debt ratios. You can be worried about interest payments, even though those are at a 30-year low and projected to go back to historical averages. But there isn't a great reason to believe that that leveling out at 80 versus 90 percent of GDP matters that much when we have mass unemployment, low interest rates, and inflation in check. Growth matters just as much as GDP for this calculation, and it's a terrible deal if we sacrifice either immediate growth or long-term investments in an attempt to bring down this debt-to-GDP ratio. There isn't good evidence that the levels matter that much if the plan works, and it is likely the plan won't work. Weakening growth is likely to balloon that deficit as well.

It's important to get a sense of where the deficit hawks will focus next because, if it is true that the deficit wars are coming to an end, all those giant deficit hawk groups are still funded through the apocalypse. Their mission will be that of Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters: "Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff." How will they keep busy and justify their taxpayer-subsidized funding? We may have just gotten an important glimpse.

[1] According to their C.V.s, it's been published in the May 2010 issue of the American Economic Review, which is a special non-reviewed "papers and proceedings" issue.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

The Most Important Graph on the Deficit

Jan 22, 2013Mike Konczal

Another friendly reminder, especially as you are deluged by pundit commentary about the budget, debt, and deficit, that there's one graphic to keep in mind about the current budget situation. From CBO:

As you can see, in 2009 our country goes into a deep recession. As a response, automatic stabilizers kick in, increasing spending through things like unemployment insurance and food stamps. Meanwhile receipts fall, as there is less economic activity and jobs that generate tax revenue, and taxes are cut further as a stimulus measure. This is not only natural, but to push back against it would have made the economy worse. That, in turn, would probably have blown out the deficit more.

The deficit is just the difference between the two lines. As the economy slowly recovers, spending decreases and tax revenues increases. We already see this happening in the CBO graphic. From the Budget Control Act there will be less spending, and from the fiscal cliff there will be more revenue. If anything, we should be worried that gap is closing too quickly, suffocating the recovery as it starts to gain strength. But the gap is still decreasing. As many people noted, the gap is closing at record-high rates.
 
There are long-term challenges driven by health care spending. Our course of action is to see if the cost control mechanisms in Obamacare work, and go from there if they don't, which I think is the right course. Certainly, after all the political pain of "cutting Medicare" and passing Obamacare, they'd be insane not to see how it works. And it is possible it is already working, with Medicare spending starting to drop.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Another friendly reminder, especially as you are deluged by pundit commentary about the budget, debt, and deficit, that there's one graphic to keep in mind about the current budget situation. From CBO:

As you can see, in 2009 our country goes into a deep recession. As a response, automatic stabilizers kick in, increasing spending through things like unemployment insurance and food stamps. Meanwhile receipts fall, as there is less economic activity and jobs that generate tax revenue, and taxes are cut further as a stimulus measure. This is not only natural, but to push back against it would have made the economy worse. That, in turn, would probably have blown out the deficit more.

The deficit is just the difference between the two lines. As the economy slowly recovers, spending decreases and tax revenues increases. We already see this happening in the CBO graphic. From the Budget Control Act there will be less spending, and from the fiscal cliff there will be more revenue. If anything, we should be worried that gap is closing too quickly, suffocating the recovery as it starts to gain strength. But the gap is still decreasing. As many people noted, the gap is closing at record-high rates.
 
There are long-term challenges driven by health care spending. Our course of action is to see if the cost control mechanisms in Obamacare work, and go from there if they don't, which I think is the right course. Certainly, after all the political pain of "cutting Medicare" and passing Obamacare, they'd be insane not to see how it works. And it is possible it is already working, with Medicare spending starting to drop.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

How Has the Liberal Project Fared Under President Obama?

Jan 22, 2013Mike Konczal

After President Obama's inaugural address yesterday -- “one of the most expansively progressive Inaugural Addresses in decades," as President Clinton's former speechwriter told Greg Sargent -- many are looking at the liberal project from the point of view of what was accomplished in the first term as well as what is possible in the second. Paul Krugman makes one version of this argument in The Big Deal, arguing, "as the second term begins [liberals should] find grounds for a lot of (qualified) satisfaction." Elias Isquith, Ned Resnikoff, and Jamelle Bouie discussed the health of the liberal project, especially the fate of social insurance, last month.

People will be engaging with these questions for the foreseeable future, starting in the next few weeks and continuing for a generation of scholars. I'm not sure if I have good answers, but I do have good questions. I've created a generalizable framework of what the component parts of the modern, domestic liberal project are so I can map how they've fared in the first term and what the challenges for each are going ahead. Liberalism is a project of freedom, of course. But by mapping it into component parts of managing the macroeconomy, a mixed economy, a strong regulatory state, and a system of social insurance, allows us to chart progress and retreat.

I'm going to address where I think these issues stand in the current debate among liberals, so it'll have a "on the one hand and also the other hand" dynamic. (The framework might seem ad hoc, but it could be built from theoretical grounds [1].) 

Managing the Macroeconomy

Goals: Taming the business cycle, Keynesian demand management, full employment.

The first term began with the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and normal monetary policy was immediately put in check. The mass unemployment of the past several years has thrown this Keynesian project into complete disarray. It hasn't helped that voters no longer think that the government is capable of doing much here, which is an unfortunate side effect of the weak response.

There's already been an extensive debate about what could have been done to generate more stimulus early on in the administration instead of pivoting away to deficit reduction. After the GOP took the House in 2010, there were two initiatives to try and meet the GOP halfway on stimulus. There was the approach of trying to propose stimulus the GOP would potentially support, like the American Jobs Bill. Remember that Congressional address in which the president said "pass this jobs bill" over and over? There was also the approach of seeking Grand Bargains for additional stimulus. This involved exchanging, say, Social Security cuts for infrastructure spending and some tax revenue. For better or worse, but mostly better, this failed because Republicans refuse to raise taxes.

But this all means that we are still stuck with high unemployment rates for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that there will be stimulus in the second term; we should hope that some of the harsher cuts, like the sequestration, are postponed while the economy is weak.

Investing in the Mixed Economy

Goals: Creating the conditions for long-term growth, investing in public goods, protecting the public sector.

In addition to managing the short-term economy, there's also the issue of setting the stage for longer-term growth. This is necessarily a grab-bag category, overlapping with the other categories, but it is useful to distinguish it from short-term unemployment. Michael Grunwald's excellent book The New New Deal revived the extensive investment in energy and other innovations that were part of the stimulus. Preventing the mass firesale and collapse of the auto industry were crucial as well.

But there's been a decline in primary and secondary education investment driven by the states, as well as a large decrease in the number of government employees. That's largely the focus of states. At the federal level, investments in infrastructure, research and development, and education, all crucial to building longer-term prosperity, are at risk. Through the Budget Control Act and upcoming sequestration, President Obama and Congress have cut non-defense discretionary spending in order to balance the medium-term debt-to-GDP ratio. As EPI's Ethan Pollack notes, it is difficult to cut here without threatening long-term prosperity.

The stimulus brought a large wave of investment, but that could be more than cancelled out by both collapsing state budgets and long-term austerity and cuts.

Social Insurance

Goals: Sharing risks from poverty, large declines in income, and health problems.

The obvious win over the past four years is Obamacare. Universal health care was the missing piece in the safety net, and efforts to try and tackle this problem have failed every 20 years going back a century. It also survived the Supreme Court, making it the law of the land.

Democratic Senator Tom Harkin called Obamacare a “starter home," which could be generous. The biggest fear I have is that when the government turns it on in 2013, it is viewed as a costly disaster. It isn't clear that Medicare costs would then be lowered and the whole idea of government health-care could be tossed overboard. The damage could be greater than just Obamacare itself. Greg Anrig worries that states can still sabotage the exchanges. Sarah Kliff has an overview on Obamacare implementation over the next four years.

The defeat of Romney and Ryan means that the conservative plans to voucherize Medicare, privatize Social Security, and block-grant everything that's not bolted to the floor is off the table, perhaps for a while. What's possible in the next few years is means-testing the programs, raising their eligibility age, and otherwise reducing benefits. The administration's proposed willingness to raise the eligibility age for retirement programs in exchange for non-social insurance related goals, like stimulus, is bad news on this frontier.

Much rides on Obamacare's success, both bending the cost curve of healthcare to fix the long-term deficit and the credibility of government more broadly.

Regulatory State

Goals: Creating rules for the marketplace that check market failures and power.

The failure to tackle climate change will be remembered as the biggest problem of President Obama's first term. He was largely silent on the issue while a bill went through Senate, though has gotten louder on the topic recently, including in the Inaugural.

Dodd-Frank consolidated regulators, added powers necessary to rationalize the derivatives market, and created a beefed-up consumer regulator. It didn't break up the banks and the Volcker Rule is very much uncertain. It's fair to say it gives regulators a lot of powers they should have had going into 2008 and checks some of the larger deregulations and market failures of the 2000s. There's a remaining sense, however, that Wall Street is outside of the normal accountability mechanisms of the state.

It's probably too early to tell how much reform was jettisoned through Cass Sunstein, the "ambivalent regulator" in charge of OIRA. But my sense is that there were genuine liberals in regulatory agencies pushing strong reform at places like the EPA and the NLRB.

Carbon is still a major threat, though it looks like the President will make a major push in his second term on the issue. There's a growing bipartisan argument for breaking up the Too Big To Fail banks, which, even if it doesn't turn into law, could put additional pressure on how financial elites have become detached from the normal modes of accountability and law.

What's your take? This framework is obviously missing international and civil libertarian projects. There is the escalation of war in Afghanistan, as well as the larger deployment of drones to more theaters, both of which are major problems. The embrace of the legacy of torture is a betrayal of civil liberties. Congress will eventually need to step up and check the power of the executive branch, yet they seem just as bad as the administration.

[1] If you want a more theoretical treatment on one way to get to this mapping, John Rawls proposed four "branches" of government in a Theory of Justice that loosely map onto these categories. The allocation branch works like the regulatory state, the stabilization branch as managing the macroeconomy, and the transfer branch for social insurance.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

After President Obama's inaugural address yesterday -- “one of the most expansively progressive Inaugural Addresses in decades," as President Clinton's former speechwriter told Greg Sargent -- many are looking at the liberal project from the point of view of what was accomplished in the first term as well as what is possible in the second. Paul Krugman makes one version of this argument in The Big Deal, arguing, "as the second term begins [liberals should] find grounds for a lot of (qualified) satisfaction." Elias Isquith, Ned Resnikoff, and Jamelle Bouie discussed the health of the liberal project, especially the fate of social insurance, last month.

People will be engaging with these questions for the foreseeable future, starting in the next few weeks and continuing for a generation of scholars. I'm not sure if I have good answers, but I do have good questions. I've created a generalizable framework of what the component parts of the modern, domestic liberal project are so I can map how they've fared in the first term and what the challenges for each are going ahead. Liberalism is a project of freedom, of course. But by mapping it into component parts of managing the macroeconomy, a mixed economy, a strong regulatory state, and a system of social insurance, allows us to chart progress and retreat.

I'm going to address where I think these issues stand in the current debate among liberals, so it'll have a "on the one hand and also the other hand" dynamic. (The framework might seem ad hoc, but it could be built from theoretical grounds [1].) 

Managing the Macroeconomy

Goals: Taming the business cycle, Keynesian demand management, full employment.

The first term began with the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and normal monetary policy was immediately put in check. The mass unemployment of the past several years has thrown this Keynesian project into complete disarray. It hasn't helped that voters no longer think that the government is capable of doing much here, which is an unfortunate side effect of the weak response.

There's already been an extensive debate about what could have been done to generate more stimulus early on in the administration instead of pivoting away to deficit reduction. After the GOP took the House in 2010, there were two initiatives to try and meet the GOP halfway on stimulus. There was the approach of trying to propose stimulus the GOP would potentially support, like the American Jobs Bill. Remember that Congressional address in which the president said "pass this jobs bill" over and over? There was also the approach of seeking Grand Bargains for additional stimulus. This involved exchanging, say, Social Security cuts for infrastructure spending and some tax revenue. For better or worse, but mostly better, this failed because Republicans refuse to raise taxes.

But this all means that we are still stuck with high unemployment rates for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that there will be stimulus in the second term; we should hope that some of the harsher cuts, like the sequestration, are postponed while the economy is weak.

Investing in the Mixed Economy

Goals: Creating the conditions for long-term growth, investing in public goods, protecting the public sector.

In addition to managing the short-term economy, there's also the issue of setting the stage for longer-term growth. This is necessarily a grab-bag category, overlapping with the other categories, but it is useful to distinguish it from short-term unemployment. Michael Grunwald's excellent book The New New Deal revived the extensive investment in energy and other innovations that were part of the stimulus. Preventing the mass firesale and collapse of the auto industry were crucial as well.

But there's been a decline in primary and secondary education investment driven by the states, as well as a large decrease in the number of government employees. That's largely the focus of states. At the federal level, investments in infrastructure, research and development, and education, all crucial to building longer-term prosperity, are at risk. Through the Budget Control Act and upcoming sequestration, President Obama and Congress have cut non-defense discretionary spending in order to balance the medium-term debt-to-GDP ratio. As EPI's Ethan Pollack notes, it is difficult to cut here without threatening long-term prosperity.

The stimulus brought a large wave of investment, but that could be more than cancelled out by both collapsing state budgets and long-term austerity and cuts.

Social Insurance

Goals: Sharing risks from poverty, large declines in income, and health problems.

The obvious win over the past four years is Obamacare. Universal health care was the missing piece in the safety net, and efforts to try and tackle this problem have failed every 20 years going back a century. It also survived the Supreme Court, making it the law of the land.

Democratic Senator Tom Harkin called Obamacare a “starter home," which could be generous. The biggest fear I have is that when the government turns it on in 2013, it is viewed as a costly disaster. It isn't clear that Medicare costs would then be lowered and the whole idea of government health-care could be tossed overboard. The damage could be greater than just Obamacare itself. Greg Anrig worries that states can still sabotage the exchanges. Sarah Kliff has an overview on Obamacare implementation over the next four years.

The defeat of Romney and Ryan means that the conservative plans to voucherize Medicare, privatize Social Security, and block-grant everything that's not bolted to the floor is off the table, perhaps for a while. What's possible in the next few years is means-testing the programs, raising their eligibility age, and otherwise reducing benefits. The administration's proposed willingness to raise the eligibility age for retirement programs in exchange for non-social insurance related goals, like stimulus, is bad news on this frontier.

Much rides on Obamacare's success, both bending the cost curve of healthcare to fix the long-term deficit and the credibility of government more broadly.

Regulatory State

Goals: Creating rules for the marketplace that check market failures and power.

The failure to tackle climate change will be remembered as the biggest problem of President Obama's first term. He was largely silent on the issue while a bill went through Senate, though has gotten louder on the topic recently, including in the Inaugural.

Dodd-Frank consolidated regulators, added powers necessary to rationalize the derivatives market, and created a beefed-up consumer regulator. It didn't break up the banks and the Volcker Rule is very much uncertain. It's fair to say it gives regulators a lot of powers they should have had going into 2008 and checks some of the larger deregulations and market failures of the 2000s. There's a remaining sense, however, that Wall Street is outside of the normal accountability mechanisms of the state.

It's probably too early to tell how much reform was jettisoned through Cass Sunstein, the "ambivalent regulator" in charge of OIRA. But my sense is that there were genuine liberals in regulatory agencies pushing strong reform at places like the EPA and the NLRB.

Carbon is still a major threat, though it looks like the President will make a major push in his second term on the issue. There's a growing bipartisan argument for breaking up the Too Big To Fail banks, which, even if it doesn't turn into law, could put additional pressure on how financial elites have become detached from the normal modes of accountability and law.

What's your take? This framework is obviously missing international and civil libertarian projects. There is the escalation of war in Afghanistan, as well as the larger deployment of drones to more theaters, both of which are major problems. The embrace of the legacy of torture is a betrayal of civil liberties. Congress will eventually need to step up and check the power of the executive branch, yet they seem just as bad as the administration.

[1] If you want a more theoretical treatment on one way to get to this mapping, John Rawls proposed four "branches" of government in a Theory of Justice that loosely map onto these categories. The allocation branch works like the regulatory state, the stabilization branch as managing the macroeconomy, and the transfer branch for social insurance.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  
 
President Obama image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

Prioritization, Credit Risks and the Potential for Default

Jan 15, 2013Mike Konczal

Does going with "prioritization" if we going through the debt ceiling remove the risk of a debt default, defined in this post as a missed payment on the interest or principal of government debt? Suzy Khimm reports on the extensive talk on the right about how the government can't debt default if it decides to prioritize interest payments by paying them first. There's a lot of pushback on this line of reasoning (see Ezra Klein, Brian Beutler).

The bigger danger is what happens when the government has to balance its budget in a single day. But it is worth shutting down this specific line of reasoning. Sorry conservatives: though it doesn't guarantee a default, going with this plan significantly increases the probability of default, which is what markets will be looking for.

Fitch, the ratings agency, rightly calls BS on this logic:

With no legal authorisation for net debt issuance, the Treasury would be forced to immediately eliminate the deficit - a fiscal contraction twice as great as the recently avoided 'fiscal cliff' - by delaying payments on commitments as they fall due. It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could prioritise debt service over its myriad of other obligations, including social security payments, tax rebates and payments to contractors and employees. Arrears on such obligations would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating perspective but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt obligations continued to be met.

Even if we successfully prioritize we'd be a higher risk for a default, prompting a downgrade. Trying this "prioritization" plan is not risk-free, but instead introduces substantial credit risk into government debt. I want to justify Fitch's assessment by looking at what would happen.
 
As a former credit risk financial engineer who's been around a default probability transition matrix in his day, I see 5 major credit risks introduced by prioritization, which means it doesn't eliminate the risk of a debt default but in fact increases it. Let's get them in a chart:

Let's go through them.
 
1. Will It Work? The first, and most obvious, problem is that it isn't clear that they'll be able to do this successfully after the debt ceiling is breached. It hasn't been done before. As Brad Plumer notes, Fedwire, the program that handles interest payments, is seperate from the computers that handle other payments. Maybe this means it can work better; maybe it means that it won't be able to sync cash balances. As far as I can tell, nobody knows how this will work in an environment of extreme shutdown. If there are computer glitches, if the IT crowd can't get it all working in time, there's a chance of missing a payment and defaulting.
 
2. Will There Be Enough Revenue? According to the BPC, February 15th has a $30 billion dollar interest payments with only $9 billion dollars coming in the door. Will we be able to make that payment? In general, we'll know the interest payments well in advance. However the revenues coming in will be uncertain, and, especially if we are making other payments, it may be difficult to match them up. Even a small mismatch could mean a default.
 
3. Legal and Political Blowback. The civil unrest of paying foreign creditors while Social Security, military and domestic spending goes unpaid will be massive. One can easily see discontent in the streets over such a plan. If we are worried about future payments, this kind of rage generates future credit risks, and could cause the government to switch to a non-prioritization regime.
 
Meanwhile, there will be extensive lawsuits, both over the lack of payments and President Obama's legal authority to prioritize payments. No matter what people are saying, the President's authority to legally do this is uncertain. Will the courts force him to pay claims in a different manner? All of this leads to huge uncertainty over the payments themselves, which amplify the chance of missing a payment.
 
4. Rolling Over Debt. There's $500 billion dollars worth of debt that will need to be rolled over during the first month after we go through the debt ceiling. If, for some reason, any of it can't be rolled over, and there isn't a sufficient cash buffer built up, that would be a default. This is unlikely, though how unlikely it is is depends on numbers 1-3 and the level of economic chaos going through the debt ceiling generates. Especially if we are past the debt ceiling for a substantial period of time, rolling over our debt won't be a trivial operation. Though it is unlikely, if it happens it is an automatic default.
 
5. Repeat Again Next Time. If Republicans are successful at pulling this off, they will do it again the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This will mean the risk of the first four factors identified are intensified.
 
If anyone tells you that the credit risks from number 1-4 are zero, they are lying to you. Each of these has a very small chance of causing a debt default. Added together, they have a non-negliable chance of debt default such that the financial markets, and citizens themselves, should take note.
 
Even if you think the chance of default in going through the debt ceiling is only about 2 percent, a 2 percent expected probability of default over the course of one year is what junk bonds have. This may be surprising for some of you, but even very small probabilities of default are big problems for firms. If there's a 0.87% chance, for instance, of default over the course of one year, that's non-investment grade debt.
 
The government has no possibility of default except for this debt ceiling; hence our normal high rating. However the debt ceiling is where many on the right want to extract maximum concessions, even though it is the one place where you could see a chance of default. This, regardless of what they'll tell you, has consequences.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Does going with "prioritization" if we going through the debt ceiling remove the risk of a debt default, defined in this post as a missed payment on the interest or principal of government debt? Suzy Khimm reports on the extensive talk on the right about how the government can't debt default if it decides to prioritize interest payments by paying them first. There's a lot of pushback on this line of reasoning (see Ezra Klein, Brian Beutler).

The bigger danger is what happens when the government has to balance its budget in a single day. But it is worth shutting down this specific line of reasoning. Sorry conservatives: though it doesn't guarantee a default, going with this plan significantly increases the probability of default, which is what markets will be looking for.

Fitch, the ratings agency, rightly calls BS on this logic:

With no legal authorisation for net debt issuance, the Treasury would be forced to immediately eliminate the deficit - a fiscal contraction twice as great as the recently avoided 'fiscal cliff' - by delaying payments on commitments as they fall due. It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could prioritise debt service over its myriad of other obligations, including social security payments, tax rebates and payments to contractors and employees. Arrears on such obligations would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating perspective but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt obligations continued to be met.

Even if we successfully prioritize we'd be a higher risk for a default, prompting a downgrade. Trying this "prioritization" plan is not risk-free, but instead introduces substantial credit risk into government debt. I want to justify Fitch's assessment by looking at what would happen.
 
As a former credit risk financial engineer who's been around a default probability transition matrix in his day, I see 5 major credit risks introduced by prioritization, which means it doesn't eliminate the risk of a debt default but in fact increases it. Let's get them in a chart:

Let's go through them.
 
1. Will It Work? The first, and most obvious, problem is that it isn't clear that they'll be able to do this successfully after the debt ceiling is breached. It hasn't been done before. As Brad Plumer notes, Fedwire, the program that handles interest payments, is seperate from the computers that handle other payments. Maybe this means it can work better; maybe it means that it won't be able to sync cash balances. As far as I can tell, nobody knows how this will work in an environment of extreme shutdown. If there are computer glitches, if the IT crowd can't get it all working in time, there's a chance of missing a payment and defaulting.
 
2. Will There Be Enough Revenue? According to the BPC, February 15th has a $30 billion dollar interest payments with only $9 billion dollars coming in the door. Will we be able to make that payment? In general, we'll know the interest payments well in advance. However the revenues coming in will be uncertain, and, especially if we are making other payments, it may be difficult to match them up. Even a small mismatch could mean a default.
 
3. Legal and Political Blowback. The civil unrest of paying foreign creditors while Social Security, military and domestic spending goes unpaid will be massive. One can easily see discontent in the streets over such a plan. If we are worried about future payments, this kind of rage generates future credit risks, and could cause the government to switch to a non-prioritization regime.
 
Meanwhile, there will be extensive lawsuits, both over the lack of payments and President Obama's legal authority to prioritize payments. No matter what people are saying, the President's authority to legally do this is uncertain. Will the courts force him to pay claims in a different manner? All of this leads to huge uncertainty over the payments themselves, which amplify the chance of missing a payment.
 
4. Rolling Over Debt. There's $500 billion dollars worth of debt that will need to be rolled over during the first month after we go through the debt ceiling. If, for some reason, any of it can't be rolled over, and there isn't a sufficient cash buffer built up, that would be a default. This is unlikely, though how unlikely it is is depends on numbers 1-3 and the level of economic chaos going through the debt ceiling generates. Especially if we are past the debt ceiling for a substantial period of time, rolling over our debt won't be a trivial operation. Though it is unlikely, if it happens it is an automatic default.
 
5. Repeat Again Next Time. If Republicans are successful at pulling this off, they will do it again the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This will mean the risk of the first four factors identified are intensified.
 
If anyone tells you that the credit risks from number 1-4 are zero, they are lying to you. Each of these has a very small chance of causing a debt default. Added together, they have a non-negliable chance of debt default such that the financial markets, and citizens themselves, should take note.
 
Even if you think the chance of default in going through the debt ceiling is only about 2 percent, a 2 percent expected probability of default over the course of one year is what junk bonds have. This may be surprising for some of you, but even very small probabilities of default are big problems for firms. If there's a 0.87% chance, for instance, of default over the course of one year, that's non-investment grade debt.
 
The government has no possibility of default except for this debt ceiling; hence our normal high rating. However the debt ceiling is where many on the right want to extract maximum concessions, even though it is the one place where you could see a chance of default. This, regardless of what they'll tell you, has consequences.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

Are "Educational Services" Off-Setting the Reduced Number of Public Education Workers?

Jan 15, 2013Mike Konczal

One important reason the recovery has been so weak has been the collapse in the number of government employees, a decline that continues years after the recession has technically "ended." An important check on the economy, unemployment would be significant lower if there weren't 651,000 fewer government jobs since January 2009.

Education jobs are a large part of this decline. State and local education job together declined 224,700 since January 2009. These losses are entirely at the local level, with state-level education workers going up slightly over the time period. This is consistent with declining spending on public primary and secondary education broadly in the states, and a large increase in the number of young people attending higher educaiton.

But what if these public sector jobs are being replaced with private sector ones? Several people on twitter have noted that the number of "educational service" jobs have gone up quite significantly in the past several years, gaining 244,500 jobs since January 2009. What if they are replacing K-12 education workers? That would be a much different picture of how the public sector is evolving in the past several years.

Luckily, the CES has the ability to break out primary and secondary education workers from education services. Let's graph this out:

(The breakout is not seasonally adjusted, and education has large seasonal changes. As such, all these numbers are a 12-month moving average. The conclusions are robust to other specifications.)

As you can see, there's been a minimal increase in the number of private elementary and secondary school workers, on the order of an increase of 39,600, all relatively recent. The vast majority of the increase in education sector workers are working in postsecondary education. This is consistent with the large increase in post-secondary education we are seeing in this recession. The private sector isn't offsetting either the state and local level austerity imposed through the school system, nor is it, as far as I can see, offsetting the major disinvestments we are making in the education and opportunities of our young people.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

One important reason the recovery has been so weak has been the collapse in the number of government employees, a decline that continues years after the recession has technically "ended." An important check on the economy, unemployment would be significant lower if there weren't 651,000 fewer government jobs since January 2009.

Education jobs are a large part of this decline. State and local education job together declined 224,700 since January 2009. These losses are entirely at the local level, with state-level education workers going up slightly over the time period. This is consistent with declining spending on public primary and secondary education broadly in the states, and a large increase in the number of young people attending higher educaiton.

But what if these public sector jobs are being replaced with private sector ones? Several people on twitter have noted that the number of "educational service" jobs have gone up quite significantly in the past several years, gaining 244,500 jobs since January 2009. What if they are replacing K-12 education workers? That would be a much different picture of how the public sector is evolving in the past several years.

Luckily, the CES has the ability to break out different groups of educational services workers, so we can focus on primary and secondary education workers as well more post-secondary workers. Let's graph this out:

(The breakout is not seasonally adjusted, and education has large seasonal changes. As such, all these numbers are a 12-month moving average. The conclusions are robust to other specifications.)

As you can see, there's been a minimal increase in the number of private elementary and secondary school workers, on the order of an increase of 39,600, all relatively recent. The vast majority of the increase in education sector workers are working in postsecondary education. This is consistent with the large increase in post-secondary education we are seeing in this recession. The private sector isn't offsetting either the state and local level austerity imposed through the school system, nor is it, as far as I can see, offsetting the major disinvestments we are making in the education and opportunities of our young people.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

The Game Theory of the Post-Platinum Coin Debt Ceiling

Jan 14, 2013Mike Konczal

In a statement given to wonkblog over the weekend, the Treasury department announced that “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that 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.” Jay Carney followed up with the statement that 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."

The administration decided against negotiating with the GOP over potential terms for raising the debt ceiling, even though they could have tried for the Grand Bargain they’ve been trying to get for the past several years. They’ve asked for a clean increase of the debt limit instead, threatening default. They’ve also now decided to commit to not sidestepping around the debt ceiling using legal measures, either by minting the platinum coin or declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.

The administration thinks that this move will strengthen their position. In general, having more choices makes you better off. But in strategic situations, removing some of your options can strengthen other options, by committing to following them through. Every game theory class has a reference to an army burning bridges and ships and otherwise removing their own escape routes, to tell their soldiers--and their opponents--that they’ll fight to the bitter end.

Since the platinum coin decision and subsequent statements seem compatible with game theory dynamics, it might be useful to diagram out the debt ceiling debate via an extensive-form game:

Removing the “avoid debt ceiling” option, in red above, is the administration’s way of saying that they want a “clean increase,” in green above, over anything else.

What are some ideas that can be drawn from viewing the debate as a game?

What Does a Clean Increase Give the Administration? For the White House, both the strategy of sidestepping the debt ceiling or the strategy of not negotiating and then having the GOP give up a clean increase would end the game. However, going for the clean increase has greater risks, as there’s a possibility of default.

So why try and force the game down this path? One reason could be that the administration is more worried about the costs of a defusing strategy than the pundits are. Maybe the Obama administration believes that the public will see this as a gross overreach of executive power.

A more likely explanation is that the administration thinks it is important to its own longer-term strategies for the GOP to play the ending move. Say Treasury had used the coin in the first round. This might have emboldened the more reactionary elements of the GOP. Taking the coin off the table forces the more sensible members of the GOP to take power back from those willing to default and move for a clean increase. This was basically Ezra Klein’s argument for not using the platinum coin.

Most liberal commentary is split over the second level of the diagram, the branches leading from the “don’t negotiate” option. There are those that think that this will force the more extreme conservatives to fold, further weakening them in the aftermath of the 2012 election and fiscal cliff. And there are those that think that breaching the debt ceiling has such a potential high cost for our economy, and don't see any reason to think the GOP will moderate to the center by February 15th, that it is not worth the risks.

The Administration Should Emphasize Default Pains... The stated strategy behind abandoning the platinum coin option is to use the threat of the “full default” to force a clean increase. One of the interesting things about the platinum coin and the 14th amendment in this game is that they have a dual strategic value. They could be used to shut down the debt ceiling in advance of having to stare down the House GOP, and they could also be kept as a last-minute option to prevent a default if the GOP doesn’t go for an increase. If the administration wants to commit to a “clean increase” strategy, then they have to remove it in both cases.

The leverage here for the administration is to emphasize the pain of default and the lack of other ways of mitigating them. The State of the Union speech is February 12th, or three days before the first day we could possibly breach the debt ceiling. There is significant opportunity there to emphasize to the public how bad the outcomes would be if there isn’t an increase, as well as to explain how impossible prioritization and workarounds are.

In the meantime, expect to see conservatives argue that the various workarounds available for the administration are sufficient and going through the debt ceiling wouldn't be that bad, contrary to the available evidence, to push back against the administration's strategy (and force them into "negotiate").

...While Downplaying IOUs and Other Shadow Currency. Several people are putting out the idea that instead of minting a platinum coin, the administration should begin to prepare IOUs, scrips, or other forms of shadow currency promising future payments once the debt ceiling is raised.

As NYC Southpaw notes, this is the equivalent of saying we will “postpone paying back our debts with a no maturity, zero coupon, federal IOU that President Obama creates by executive order” that are almost certainly “a whole new fiat currency. They would be perpetual obligations of the government that are freely transferable and earn no interest—just like the bills in your wallet.”

This is a weaker option than the platinum coin on every angle, inviting more legal challenges, uncertainty and constitutional issues while also inviting blowback for the administration in the form of how they are prioritized and the likely bank profits. (To use game theory terms, the platinum coin strictly dominated the IOU shadow currency strategy.)

Since it is weaker across the board, and the administration is trying to downplay both points at which this strategy could be deployed (under “avoid” as well as “workarounds”) expect little play on this topic in the weeks ahead.

Sequestration Complicates This. As many have noted, the debt ceiling will occur at the same time as the large spending cuts in the sequestration come into play. One doesn’t have to be cynical to think that the debt ceiling will be in the background of any sequestration negotiations. Removing the platinum coin tells us little about this will play out, though throwing in the debt ceiling might make a bad deal look better for the administration and Democrats.

Finally if the administration gets the better of the GOP on sequestration, it could make the GOP more likely to threaten default to compensate for what see as a loss of power. In theory, the payouts of one game shouldn’t affect a completely different game, but life is often more complicated than what game theory can tell us.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

In a statement given to wonkblog over the weekend, the Treasury department announced that “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that 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.” Jay Carney followed up with the statement that 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."

The administration decided against negotiating with the GOP over potential terms for raising the debt ceiling, even though they could have tried for the Grand Bargain they’ve been trying to get for the past several years. They’ve asked for a clean increase of the debt limit instead, threatening default. They’ve also now decided to commit to not sidestepping around the debt ceiling using legal measures, either by minting the platinum coin or declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.

The administration thinks that this move will strengthen their position. In general, having more choices makes you better off. But in strategic situations, removing some of your options can strengthen other options, by committing to following them through. Every game theory class has a reference to an army burning bridges and ships and otherwise removing their own escape routes, to tell their soldiers--and their opponents--that they’ll fight to the bitter end.

Since the platinum coin decision and subsequent statements seem compatible with game theory dynamics, it might be useful to diagram out the debt ceiling debate via an extensive-form game:

Removing the “avoid debt ceiling” option, in red above, is the administration’s way of saying that they want a “clean increase,” in green above, over anything else.

What are some ideas that can be drawn from viewing the debate as a game?

What Does a Clean Increase Give the Administration? For the White House, both the strategy of sidestepping the debt ceiling or the strategy of not negotiating and then having the GOP give up a clean increase would end the game. However, going for the clean increase has greater risks, as there’s a possibility of default.

So why try and force the game down this path? One reason could be that the administration is more worried about the costs of a defusing strategy than the pundits are. Maybe the Obama administration believes that the public will see this as a gross overreach of executive power.

A more likely explanation is that the administration thinks it is important to its own longer-term strategies for the GOP to play the ending move. Say Treasury had used the coin in the first round. This might have emboldened the more reactionary elements of the GOP. Taking the coin off the table forces the more sensible members of the GOP to take power back from those willing to default and move for a clean increase. This was basically Ezra Klein’s argument for not using the platinum coin.

Most liberal commentary is split over the second level of the diagram, the branches leading from the “don’t negotiate” option. There are those that think that this will force the more extreme conservatives to fold, further weakening them in the aftermath of the 2012 election and fiscal cliff. And there are those that think that breaching the debt ceiling has such a potential high cost for our economy, and don't see any reason to think the GOP will moderate to the center by February 15th, that it is not worth the risks.

The Administration Should Emphasize Default Pains... The stated strategy behind abandoning the platinum coin option is to use the threat of the “full default” to force a clean increase. One of the interesting things about the platinum coin and the 14th amendment in this game is that they have a dual strategic value. They could be used to shut down the debt ceiling in advance of having to stare down the House GOP, and they could also be kept as a last-minute option to prevent a default if the GOP doesn’t go for an increase. If the administration wants to commit to a “clean increase” strategy, then they have to remove it in both cases.

The leverage here for the administration is to emphasize the pain of default and the lack of other ways of mitigating them. The State of the Union speech is February 12th, or three days before the first day we could possibly breach the debt ceiling. There is significant opportunity there to emphasize to the public how bad the outcomes would be if there isn’t an increase, as well as to explain how impossible prioritization and workarounds are.

In the meantime, expect to see conservatives argue that the various workarounds available for the administration are sufficient and going through the debt ceiling wouldn't be that bad, contrary to the available evidence, to push back against the administration's strategy (and force them into "negotiate").

...While Downplaying IOUs and Other Shadow Currency. Several people are putting out the idea that instead of minting a platinum coin, the administration should begin to prepare IOUs, scrips, or other forms of shadow currency promising future payments once the debt ceiling is raised.

As NYC Southpaw notes, this is the equivalent of saying we will “postpone paying back our debts with a no maturity, zero coupon, federal IOU that President Obama creates by executive order” that are almost certainly “a whole new fiat currency. They would be perpetual obligations of the government that are freely transferable and earn no interest—just like the bills in your wallet.”

This is a weaker option than the platinum coin on every angle, inviting more legal challenges, uncertainty and constitutional issues while also inviting blowback for the administration in the form of how they are prioritized and the likely bank profits. (To use game theory terms, the platinum coin strictly dominated the IOU shadow currency strategy.)

Since it is weaker across the board, and the administration is trying to downplay both points at which this strategy could be deployed (under “avoid” as well as “workarounds”) expect little play on this topic in the weeks ahead.

Sequestration Complicates This. As many have noted, the debt ceiling will occur at the same time as the large spending cuts in the sequestration come into play. One doesn’t have to be cynical to think that the debt ceiling will be in the background of any sequestration negotiations. Removing the platinum coin tells us little about this will play out, though throwing in the debt ceiling might make a bad deal look better for the administration and Democrats.

Finally if the administration gets the better of the GOP on sequestration, it could make the GOP more likely to threaten default to compensate for what see as a loss of power. In theory, the payouts of one game shouldn’t affect a completely different game, but life is often more complicated than what game theory can tell us.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

On the Geithner Legacy

Jan 11, 2013Mike Konczal

As Ben Walsh of Reuters mentions, the Tim Geithner Legacy Project is underway. There was a large post by Neil Irwin in the Washington Post, arguing that he'll be one of the most important Treasury secretaries in history. Joe Weisenthal argues he's done a great job guiding us out of the recession compared to other countries. As there will be several pieces like this in the weeks ahead, I want to make some general criticisms. This will probably go across several posts.

I: Sugar

Joe Weisthnal notes that our recovery has been better than other financial crisis recessions.

 

Four things about the chart. First, I’d note as a matter of the empirical research that “financial crisis” isn’t a coherent unit of measurement for these purposes. If Finland was going to have a recession three-times worse than the United States, it would also have a "financial crisis" at some point. But that doesn't mean the recessions are identical. This idea that financial crises creates long recessions when long recessions really create financial crises is the weak part of the whole Rogoff-Reinhart argument.  So I’m not sure these are equal starting points for a comparison.

Second: Joe argues that what saved us was bailing out the financial sector with a blank-check. Maybe, but I'd need to see more. What has the financial sector done to boost the real economy during this time period? The financial sector shutdown in 2009, even after the bailouts. The government became the de facto financial sector during the worst of the crisis and in its aftermath. A more generous or more harsh bailout wouldn't have changed this fact.

The biggest threat to the real economy would have been the shutdown of the commercial paper market, which the Federal Reserve backstopped and ran by itself through emergency lending facilities (but only after TARP had passed). The private student loan market collapsed, which had to be taken up by the public sector (a relationship that became permanent in Obamacare). FHA basically took over the housing market, saving it when the financial sector disappeared. The private market was incapable of generating funding to save the auto industry, which the government had to do. So, ummm, thanks financial sector?

(To go further, while the best and brightest of the financial sector were busy gambling and not beating the S&P 500, the United States provided financing for long-term R&D investments in things like energy during the recession. As root_e notes, what value does a private capital market even provide at this point?)

Third: The real credit for that graphic almost certainly goes to House Republicans, which wouldn’t take yes for an answer when it came to prematurely getting to austerity. Geithner, as Zachary Goldfarb reported in the Washington Post, famously had this exchange with Christina Romer:

By early last year [in 2010], Geithner was beginning to gain the upper hand in a rancorous debate over whether to propose a second economic stimulus program to Congress, beyond the $787 billion package lawmakers had approved in 2009. [....]
 
Once, as Romer pressed for more stimulus spending, Geithner snapped. Stimulus, he told Romer, was “sugar,” and its effect was fleeting. The administration, he urged, needed to focus on long-term economic growth, and the first step was reining in the debt.
 
Wrong, Romer snapped back. Stimulus is an “antibiotic” for a sick economy, she told Geithner. “It’s not giving a child a lollipop.”
 
In the end, Obama signed into law only a relatively modest $13 billion jobs program, much less than what was favored by Romer and many other economists in the administration.
 
“There was this move to exit fiscal stimulus a lot sooner than we should have, and we’ve been playing catch-up ever since,” Romer said in an interview.

If running large fiscal deficits are what is keeping the economy afloat as it delevers, Geithner’s choice to turn to the long-term would have been a disaster if the Republicans would have met him halfway.

Fourth: The other credit goes to Ben Bernanke, who hasn’t taken his foot off the pedal (but should be pushing more). It’s worth noting that, besides the destruction it has put on families and communities, the lack of a serious response on housing has put monetary policy in check. Experts in monetary policy have noted how the Federal Reserve has pushed for the lowest mortgage rates in modern history only to find that Treasury had no plan in place to allow underwater mortgages to refinance. By the time they did put programs in place, in Spring 2012, the way it was setup and the lack of public refinancing means that a huge amount of the monetary stimulus is going to banks’ profits.

II: A Tale of Two Programs

Speaking of housing, let’s compare two programs instituted under Secretary Geithner.

The first is the FHA Short Refi program. It is an $8.1 billion dollar line of credit allocated through TARP designed to "enable lenders to provide additional refinancing options to homeowners who owe more than their home is worth." According to the latest SIGTARP numbers, it has modified 1,772 mortgages and allocated $57 million dollars for potential future claims as well as expenses. Which means it has spent less than 1 percent of its funds, even though those funds are allocated for this purpose. I’ve noted it would be perfectly legal for Treasury to use this fund to provide up to around $100 billion dollars of funding for a HOLC program, like the one Senator Merkley has proposed, and it can be done without going to Congress.

The second is the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, also referred to as PPIP or the “Geithner Plan.” Here Geithner proposed a program that would have private hedge funds team up with the government to purchase one trillion dollars of “legacy assets,” or the toxic waste of bad, illiquid mortgage-backed securities on the Too Big To Fail banks' balance sheets. The hedge funds would provide some money and expertise as well as take the first losses, with the FDIC’s fund providing the leverage and eating all the remaining losses.

This program was correctly identified as the public writing a “put option” on those debts. As such, the public insurance would cause the hedge funds to overbid for the assets, which would help get them off the balance-sheets of the banks.

PPIP was killed quickly for a number of reasons, including the fact that this subsidy wasn’t enough for the banks' balance sheet, but it is worth noting two things. The core instinct was to put programs in place in 2009 to bid up, rather than write down, bad mortgage debt. Instead of trying to get those assets written down to a manageable level quickly, public money and power was utilized towards trying to keep that value up. That’s the opposite of what one should do in a balance-sheet recession. And the recent evidence all points to the prolonged recession being a result of a large debt overhang.

The other is the contrast between creativity and energy shown in the pursuit of getting the public to take over the garbage loans of the TBTF banks, and the lack of interest in taking already allocated money for housing relief and using it towards its stated goals. The FDIC fund isn’t meant for this kind of gambling; it reflects a form of social insurance banks and depositors pay to prevent panics. Meanwhile the government isn’t even bothering to spend the money already allocated through programs like FHA Short Refi, much less using them in creative ways. If only half that energy was put into motion on behalf of debtors and homeowners.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

As Ben Walsh of Reuters mentions, the Tim Geithner Legacy Project is underway. There was a large post by Neil Irwin in the Washington Post, arguing that he'll be one of the most important Treasury secretaries in history. Joe Weisenthal argues he's done a great job guiding us out of the recession compared to other countries. As there will be several pieces like this in the weeks ahead, I want to make some general criticisms. This will probably go across several posts.

I: Sugar

Joe Weisthnal notes that our recovery has been better than other financial crisis recessions.

 

Four things about the chart. First, I’d note as a matter of the empirical research that “financial crisis” isn’t a coherent unit of measurement for these purposes. If Finland was going to have a recession three-times worse than the United States, it would also have a "financial crisis" at some point. But that doesn't mean the recessions are identical. This idea that financial crises creates long recessions when long recessions really create financial crises is the weak part of the whole Rogoff-Reinhart argument.  So I’m not sure these are equal starting points for a comparison.

Second: Joe argues that what saved us was bailing out the financial sector with a blank-check. Maybe, but I'd need to see more. What has the financial sector done to boost the real economy during this time period? The financial sector shutdown in 2009, even after the bailouts. The government became the de facto financial sector during the worst of the crisis and in its aftermath. A more generous or more harsh bailout wouldn't have changed this fact.

The biggest threat to the real economy would have been the shutdown of the commercial paper market, which the Federal Reserve backstopped and ran by itself through emergency lending facilities (but only after TARP had passed). The private student loan market collapsed, which had to be taken up by the public sector (a relationship that became permanent in Obamacare). FHA basically took over the housing market, saving it when the financial sector disappeared. The private market was incapable of generating funding to save the auto industry, which the government had to do. So, ummm, thanks financial sector?

(To go further, while the best and brightest of the financial sector were busy gambling and not beating the S&P 500, the United States provided financing for long-term R&D investments in things like energy during the recession. As root_e notes, what value does a private capital market even provide at this point?)

Third: The real credit for that graphic almost certainly goes to House Republicans, which wouldn’t take yes for an answer when it came to prematurely getting to austerity. Geithner, as Zachary Goldfarb reported in the Washington Post, famously had this exchange with Christina Romer:

By early last year [in 2010], Geithner was beginning to gain the upper hand in a rancorous debate over whether to propose a second economic stimulus program to Congress, beyond the $787 billion package lawmakers had approved in 2009. [....]
 
Once, as Romer pressed for more stimulus spending, Geithner snapped. Stimulus, he told Romer, was “sugar,” and its effect was fleeting. The administration, he urged, needed to focus on long-term economic growth, and the first step was reining in the debt.
 
Wrong, Romer snapped back. Stimulus is an “antibiotic” for a sick economy, she told Geithner. “It’s not giving a child a lollipop.”
 
In the end, Obama signed into law only a relatively modest $13 billion jobs program, much less than what was favored by Romer and many other economists in the administration.
 
“There was this move to exit fiscal stimulus a lot sooner than we should have, and we’ve been playing catch-up ever since,” Romer said in an interview.

If running large fiscal deficits are what is keeping the economy afloat as it delevers, Geithner’s choice to turn to the long-term would have been a disaster if the Republicans would have met him halfway.

Fourth: The other credit goes to Ben Bernanke, who hasn’t taken his foot off the pedal (but should be pushing more). It’s worth noting that, besides the destruction it has put on families and communities, the lack of a serious response on housing has put monetary policy in check. Experts in monetary policy have noted how the Federal Reserve has pushed for the lowest mortgage rates in modern history only to find that Treasury had no plan in place to allow underwater mortgages to refinance. By the time they did put programs in place, in Spring 2012, the way it was setup and the lack of public refinancing means that a huge amount of the monetary stimulus is going to banks’ profits.

II: A Tale of Two Programs

Speaking of housing, let’s compare two programs instituted under Secretary Geithner.

The first is the FHA Short Refi program. It is an $8.1 billion dollar line of credit allocated through TARP designed to "enable lenders to provide additional refinancing options to homeowners who owe more than their home is worth." According to the latest SIGTARP numbers, it has modified 1,772 mortgages and allocated $57 million dollars for potential future claims as well as expenses. Which means it has spent less than 1 percent of its funds, even though those funds are allocated for this purpose. I’ve noted it would be perfectly legal for Treasury to use this fund to provide up to around $100 billion dollars of funding for a HOLC program, like the one Senator Merkley has proposed, and it can be done without going to Congress.

The second is the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, also referred to as PPIP or the “Geithner Plan.” Here Geithner proposed a program that would have private hedge funds team up with the government to purchase one trillion dollars of “legacy assets,” or the toxic waste of bad, illiquid mortgage-backed securities on the Too Big To Fail banks' balance sheets. The hedge funds would provide some money and expertise as well as take the first losses, with the FDIC’s fund providing the leverage and eating all the remaining losses.

This program was correctly identified as the public writing a “put option” on those debts. As such, the public insurance would cause the hedge funds to overbid for the assets, which would help get them off the balance-sheets of the banks.

PPIP was killed quickly for a number of reasons, including the fact that this subsidy wasn’t enough for the banks' balance sheet, but it is worth noting two things. The core instinct was to put programs in place in 2009 to bid up, rather than write down, bad mortgage debt. Instead of trying to get those assets written down to a manageable level quickly, public money and power was utilized towards trying to keep that value up. That’s the opposite of what one should do in a balance-sheet recession. And the recent evidence all points to the prolonged recession being a result of a large debt overhang.

The other is the contrast between creativity and energy shown in the pursuit of getting the public to take over the garbage loans of the TBTF banks, and the lack of interest in taking already allocated money for housing relief and using it towards its stated goals. The FDIC fund isn’t meant for this kind of gambling; it reflects a form of social insurance banks and depositors pay to prevent panics. Meanwhile the government isn’t even bothering to spend the money already allocated through programs like FHA Short Refi, much less using them in creative ways. If only half that energy was put into motion on behalf of debtors and homeowners.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Should President Obama Announce No Prioritizing Payments in the Debt Ceiling, or Start Minting Platinum Coins Daily?

Jan 9, 2013Mike Konczal

Steve Bell, Loren Adler, Shai Akabas and Brian Collins of the Bipartisan Policy Center recently put out an excellent analysis of what will happen if we breach the debt ceiling. Technically we've already breached the debt ceiling on December 31st, but Treasury has started extraordinary measures to juggle payments and borrow money. This can't go on forever, and it won't. The paper concludes that the "X date," when there is officially not enough money to pay all the bills due on that date, will occur between February 15th and March 1st.

What's most worrisome about the report is how uncertain they are about what will happen afterward. The main possible strategy they discuss is Treasury starting a process of "prioritization," where they pick and choose what payments to make as the money comes in each day. In theory the United States wouldn't default on its debts, because it could prioritize interest payments.

The only problem is that it isn't clear that they have the legal authority to do that. As the BPC noted in a previous blog post, there's a one-page, non-binding GAO report from the 1980s that suggests the executive branch would be able to do this. However, a long history of "impoundment," or the executive branch ignoring or disobeying spending orders, and the subsequent battles show that this is not uncontroversial.

And as Josh Barro noted on Twitter, there are days when the Treasury couldn't make the interest payment based on the income of that day. And these are some thin margins on the day-to-day measures; if some come in higher or lower than anticipated, we might miss an interest payment even if Treasury tried to prioritize. According to BPC, the money coming in and out is "lumpy," so these risks are high. Beyond that, it isn't even clear that Treasury has the technology or processes in place to do this successfully.

It's important to remember that the conservative think tanks argue that the government can always prioritize interest payments, so there's no risk of default if we go past the "X date." I documented this as their argument from 2011, and it still is being used. As the idea of using the debt ceiling becomes normalized in the Washington press, the idea that we can't default because the president can always prioritize the interest payment might become a form of justification for why the new normal isn't so bad.

Should President Obama announce that if we breach the debt ceiling the government won't make any payments, including on interest, period? The downside is all on the president if he tries. If he says he can still prioritize interest payments, but there's an unknown glitch or difficulty with the day-to-day cash flows, it is a major embarrassment for the White House. And if he does start prioritizing payments, the White House could face serious political blowback from deciding who to pay. Treasury paying bondholders and military contractors but not Social Security or veteran's hospitals -- there are an infinite number of bad headlines. If Treasury is prioritizing these, even because Congress has forced it to, it is a losing proposition for the White House. And you can't lose the game if you don't play.

The Real Problem With a Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

The BPC report also shows a way to operationalize the platinum coin strategy. There have been numerous write-ups of the platinum coin strategy, which would allow the Treasury to create large-denomination platinum coins to deposit at the Federal Reserve, thus keeping the government funded if it can't borrow money. Matt O'Brien sums up everything you want to know, and Interfluidity and Ryan Cooper have link roundups. The link roundups give you a sense of the critics of this strategy. BPC calls it "impractical, illegal, and/or inappropriate" (my favorite things!), while most think of it as unserious.

I think the bigger problem of the trillion-dollar platinum coin strategy isn't the platinum but the trillion. I worry that the public will either think a trillion-dollar coin means the government is changing, in a big way, how it funds itself permanently, or that President Obama wants to bulldoze Congress on all spending authority to spend an extra trillion dollars, rather than what it is, which is a mechanism to keep spending Congress already passed going.

Luckily, scanning the BPC daily timetables, on most individual days the deficit between money coming in and going out will be between $10 and $20 billion. (There are a few days where it will be on the order of $50 or $60 billion, however.) Here's an example:

So, instead of a trillion-dollar coin, what if the president said, "I have a constitutionally obligated responsibility to carry out the spending Congress has authorized. I have no legal authority to prioritize payments, and the process is too risky for us to try. Therefore I will mint a $20 billion coin each day until Congress raises the debt ceiling. That is just enough to make the payments Congress has required me to make."

It takes the trillion out of the headline. The focus is back on day-to-day spending rather than higher-level arguments about whether or not the United States government can run out of money. With actual speechwriters, the pitch could make sense to the public. And insiders watching it would understand it is the same exact thing as the trillion-dollar platinum coin. Interfluidity brought up the idea of smaller denomination platinum coins. Tying it to one-coin-a-day will help frame the discussion where it needs to be, which is Congress provoking a constitutional crisis by refusing to fund money it has already spent.

Thoughts?

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Steve Bell, Loren Adler, Shai Akabas and Brian Collins of the Bipartisan Policy Center recently put out an excellent analysis of what will happen if we breach the debt ceiling. Technically we've already breached the debt ceiling on December 31st, but Treasury has started extraordinary measures to juggle payments and borrow money. This can't go on forever, and it won't. The paper concludes that the "X date," when there is officially not enough money to pay all the bills due on that date, will occur between February 15th and March 1st.

What's most worrisome about the report is how uncertain they are about what will happen afterward. The main possible strategy they discuss is Treasury starting a process of "prioritization," where they pick and choose what payments to make as the money comes in each day. In theory the United States wouldn't default on its debts, because it could prioritize interest payments.

The only problem is that it isn't clear that they have the legal authority to do that. As the BPC noted in a previous blog post, there's a one-page, non-binding GAO report from the 1980s that suggests the executive branch would be able to do this. However, a long history of "impoundment," or the executive branch ignoring or disobeying spending orders, and the subsequent battles show that this is not uncontroversial.

And as Josh Barro noted on Twitter, there are days when the Treasury couldn't make the interest payment based on the income of that day. And these are some thin margins on the day-to-day measures; if some come in higher or lower than anticipated, we might miss an interest payment even if Treasury tried to prioritize. According to BPC, the money coming in and out is "lumpy," so these risks are high. Beyond that, it isn't even clear that Treasury has the technology or processes in place to do this successfully.

It's important to remember that the conservative think tanks argue that the government can always prioritize interest payments, so there's no risk of default if we go past the "X date." I documented this as their argument from 2011, and it still is being used. As the idea of using the debt ceiling becomes normalized in the Washington press, the idea that we can't default because the president can always prioritize the interest payment might become a form of justification for why the new normal isn't so bad.

Should President Obama announce that if we breach the debt ceiling the government won't make any payments, including on interest, period? The downside is all on the president if he tries. If he says he can still prioritize interest payments, but there's an unknown glitch or difficulty with the day-to-day cash flows, it is a major embarrassment for the White House. And if he does start prioritizing payments, the White House could face serious political blowback from deciding who to pay. Treasury paying bondholders and military contractors but not Social Security or veteran's hospitals -- there are an infinite number of bad headlines. If Treasury is prioritizing these, even because Congress has forced it to, it is a losing proposition for the White House. And you can't lose the game if you don't play.

The Real Problem With a Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

The BPC report also shows a way to operationalize the platinum coin strategy. There have been numerous write-ups of the platinum coin strategy, which would allow the Treasury to create large-denomination platinum coins to deposit at the Federal Reserve, thus keeping the government funded if it can't borrow money. Matt O'Brien sums up everything you want to know, and Interfluidity and Ryan Cooper have link roundups. The link roundups give you a sense of the critics of this strategy. BPC calls it "impractical, illegal, and/or inappropriate" (my favorite things!), while most think of it as unserious.

I think the bigger problem of the trillion-dollar platinum coin strategy isn't the platinum but the trillion. I worry that the public will either think a trillion-dollar coin means the government is changing, in a big way, how it funds itself permanently, or that President Obama wants to bulldoze Congress on all spending authority to spend an extra trillion dollars, rather than what it is, which is a mechanism to keep spending Congress already passed going.

Luckily, scanning the BPC daily timetables, on most individual days the deficit between money coming in and going out will be between $10 and $20 billion. (There are a few days where it will be on the order of $50 or $60 billion, however.) Here's an example:

So, instead of a trillion-dollar coin, what if the president said, "I have a constitutionally obligated responsibility to carry out the spending Congress has authorized. I have no legal authority to prioritize payments, and the process is too risky for us to try. Therefore I will mint a $20 billion coin each day until Congress raises the debt ceiling. That is just enough to make the payments Congress has required me to make."

It takes the trillion out of the headline. The focus is back on day-to-day spending rather than higher-level arguments about whether or not the United States government can run out of money. With actual speechwriters, the pitch could make sense to the public. And insiders watching it would understand it is the same exact thing as the trillion-dollar platinum coin. Interfluidity brought up the idea of smaller denomination platinum coins. Tying it to one-coin-a-day will help frame the discussion where it needs to be, which is Congress provoking a constitutional crisis by refusing to fund money it has already spent.

Thoughts?

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Pages