Skip to main content

The conventional wisdom about the Republican threat to refuse to raise the debt ceiling is that this is just another hostage-taking scenario.  They can't actually want to force the US into default, because the results wold be catastrophic, so they must just be using the threat of such a catastrophe to extort some policy ransom from our side.   They're just bluffing, as Jed Lewison concludes in discussing the debt ceiling fight yesterday.

Perhaps the conventional wisdom is right, and they are just bluffing.  But the conventional wisdom is systematically ignoring the growing numbers of Rs, of whom Pawlenty was only the latest, who offer a theory of how we could have a no-risk national bankruptcy, one that wouldn't result in an economic meltdown.

I'll explore how credible or incredible that is below the fold...

If you think they're bluffing, you're assuming that we're in the same sort of hostage situation that we were in with the annual budget bills.  The Rs were able to extort some concessions from our side by threatening to not pass the budget bills, forcing a govt shut-down.  They didn't really want to shut down the govt as any sort of end in itself, they were just using their advertised greater willingness to see this happen than the Ds were willing to see it happen, to collect some ransom from our side.  It wasn't much ransom that they got, because everybody knew they didn't really want the govt to shut down, so the threat to kill the hostage wasn't very credible.

Now, it is almost certainly true that the clear majority of the Rs do not want the US defaulting on its debt to creditors.  Maybe some of them would not be unhappy to see our credit rating damaged by such a default, because they imagine this would be a sort of "tough love" way to make it impossible for us to continue to feed our addiction to what they think of as "borrow and spend".  But almost none of them want the more serious problem that would result from the US not meeting all of its obligations to all of its creditors, the downstream financial, then economic, havoc that would ensue when our inability to pay our creditors would force many of them into insolvency.  The vicious cycle would feed on itself in a chain reaction that would only stop who knows where.

So, sure, the idea that they're just bluffing again on killing the hostage of the debt ceiling, has this going for it -- we can safely assume there is a consensus among Rs to avoid causing the US to default on its creditors.  They won't actually kill the hostage, therefore they must be bluffing.

The problem with that line of reasoning, is that the Rs have been telling us that they believe that we can have a risk-free national bankruptcy.   They believe that, when the crunch comes, and the US can't meet all of its obligations because it can't borrow more, we will choose to continue to honor all of our oblgations to actual creditors scrupulously, and will choose instead to fail to honor obligations to the social safety net.  Sure, even that failure might have a negative impact on our credit rating (the Banana Republic Effect), but:
    1) the worsened credit rating is the part of the downside that the teahadists think is a feature not a bug
    2) they believe that the reward from confidence fairies for being hard-nosed about safety net austerity will more than counterbalance any credit rating problem.
The important feature of this theory, is that whatever happens to the credit rating, we avoid downstream havoc by not failing in any way to pay actual creditors on time.

Now, it is perfectly possible that they are professing a belief in this theory for the sole purpose of enhancing the rather weak credibility of their threat to kill the hostage, and that we don't have to abandon the conventional wisdom that this is just Act II of Hostage Kabuki.  That's certainly a possible explanation of their espousal of this idea of a risk-free bankruptcy. Well, free of risk to what they value, if not to people who depend on the safety net.

But isn't it the simpler explanation for their claiming to believe these things, that they actually believe these things?  Compared to birtherism, or Ryanomics, the idea that the US, even with a D president, would choose to stiff the safety net over stiffing creditors, seems starkly sane and reasonable.  And if it's credible that the US would do this in the event that the House's refusal to raise the debt ceiling puts us, on 8/2/11, in a position of having to stiff somebody, where is the big catastrophe that would result that the Rs would not like to see?  They assume (and is not this assumption reasonable?) that the Ds would fold quickly, and agree to the Ryan/Catfood Commission plan to end the safety net in a gradual and orderly fashion long-term in order to get the checks mailing again in the short term.  They won't even have to deal with the PR problem of having stopped SocSec checks for very long, and that PR hit will be quickly lost in the long-term hit for ending the safety net, a hit that will be shared on a bipartisan basis.  They will have the Holy Grail they have been seeking for generations -- bipartisan cover for ending the social safety net.

Where's the downside for the Rs in this?  If there is no downside for them in the end-state, and if the mechanics leading to the end-state would work -- why would they be bluffing?  Why not seize this opportunity to end the social safety net.  They will never get another opportunity to end it in as low-risk a manner as this plan offers them.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dan c

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

  •  The Democrats are part of the scam... (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Unit Zero

    Both parties are under the control of a corporate Oligarchy, and all this drama we see is a dog-and-pony show meant to make people believe we have a real debate.

    The social safety net will continue to be dismantled.  The regulatory infrastructure will not be put back in place, which will allow the Oligarchy to continue enriching themselves, and the further exploitation and suppression of the citizenry.

    The only way this can be turned around is with a massive, organized, relentless, protest movement.  The kind that required the deployment of national guard troops.

  •  gtompkins - will we default? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dan c, gtomkins

    Many are making the point that interest on the national debt is about 10% of the budget and that the government will have more than enough cash flow to pay the interest and redeem any maturing Treasury securities. In my view the hostage is not default, because I don't think that the President and Treasury Secretary will not allow the US to default on any of its debt instruments. However, the hostage is the one third of the budget that is funded by new debt and how the radical reduction of the budget will impact individuals, needed programs, and government employees.  I do believe that the gopers have convinced themselves that their is no downside to this from their perspective. They think they will get significant spending cuts one way or the other by just sitting on their hands.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 10:30:18 AM PDT

    •  "Default" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Part of the problem here is the nomenclature of insolvency that we use in this debate.  We don't differentiate the narrower concept of defaulting on loans, from the wider concept of a bankruptcy in which we don't have enough funds to meet the whole spectrum of our obligations, of which loans, as you point out, are only a fraction.  

      So it seems obvious that, of course, the Rs don't really mean to let the US default, fail to pay every jot and tittle of its loan obligations.  That idea is deservedly conventional wisdom.

      But it's far from obvious that they wouldn't be quite willing to let the US go into bankruptcy, become insolvent, if they were confident that the obligations the US would choose to not meet, or be forced to not meet, would not include actual debt and its service.  I don't think it deserves to be conventional wisdom that the Rs will approve a rise in the debt ceiling before the US is forced into bankruptcy choices of who it will pay and who it will not pay.

      The idea that the Rs will approve a rise in the debt ceiling before it comes to a crunch is accepted as conventional wisdom because the difference between default and bankruptcy is not observed, and people imagine these two very different propositions are the same.

      Of course, the confusion in what we label these things is really just, in the end, a function of our unwilingness to face facts, because making such distinctions is the essence of facing facts.

      We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

      by gtomkins on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site