Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:24 PM Oct 2013

Best solution I have seen so far to avoid default if the debt ceiling is not raised.


The Debt Ceiling’s Escape Hatch

....

Some have suggested, for instance, that the president could ignore the debt ceiling and direct the Treasury to issue more bonds to cover its obligations. But the Constitution is clear, and Mr. Obama agrees, that Congress alone has the power to authorize new borrowing. Other supposed solutions — like the notion that the Treasury Department could create a $1 trillion dollar platinum coin and deposit it in its own account at the Federal Reserve — are even more fantastical.

However, there is a plausible course of action, one that the president should publicly adopt in the coming weeks as his contingency plan should debt-ceiling negotiations falter. He should threaten to issue scrip — “registered warrants” — to existing claims holders (other than those who own actual government debt) in lieu of money. Recipients of these I.O.U.’s could include federal employees, defense contractors, Medicare service providers, Social Security recipients and others.

The scrip would not violate the debt ceiling because it wouldn’t constitute a new borrowing of money backed by the credit of the United States. It would merely be a formal acknowledgment of a pre-existing monetary claim against the United States that the Treasury was not currently able to pay. The president could therefore establish a scrip program by executive order without piling a constitutional crisis on top of a fiscal one.

To avoid any confusion with actual Treasury debt, and to be consistent with the law governing claims against the United States more generally, the scrip would not pay interest in most cases. And unlike debt, it would have no fixed maturity date but rather would become redeemable in cash only when the secretary of the Treasury was able to certify that there’s enough money available in the Treasury’s general fund to cover it. Finally, the scrip would be transferable, allowing financial institutions to buy it at a high percentage of its face value, knowing that the political crisis would almost certainly be resolved before long.

.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/opinion/an-escape-hatch-for-the-debt-ceiling.html



I hope that President Obama's team is making preparations in case they need to do this.


22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Best solution I have seen so far to avoid default if the debt ceiling is not raised. (Original Post) Nye Bevan Oct 2013 OP
Yard Sale! Roland99 Oct 2013 #1
Wouldn't that still devalue the current debt because it caps the interest? landolfi Oct 2013 #2
Callable, face value, zero coupon bearer bonds. A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #3
But, it changes the original contract to less favorable terms, and thus devalues it landolfi Oct 2013 #5
Read the OP again. A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #7
I did read it, still default IMNSHO landolfi Oct 2013 #14
The effect of this would likely be similar to an actual default. PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #4
It would send the message that the United States is a credit risk BlueCaliDem Oct 2013 #6
That message is already out there and it WON'T make Wall Street "happy". A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #9
Wall Street *will* be happy to get their money AND to put this president on the path to impeachment. BlueCaliDem Oct 2013 #13
There's also the use of bonds that pay an interest, but never promise to repay any of the principal BelgianMadCow Oct 2013 #8
THAT makes perfect sense, Benton D Struckcheon Oct 2013 #10
Why would an investor want to buy that? DCBob Oct 2013 #11
An investor would convert a sum he had now into a perpetual stream BelgianMadCow Oct 2013 #12
No it wouldn't.... A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #16
I can follow why the interest could be lower. But these consols aren't callable BelgianMadCow Oct 2013 #17
Any security of this type can have a call provision at the outset. n/t A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #18
OK, but then the consol would count against the debt limit, so such a provision would then BelgianMadCow Oct 2013 #19
LOL...I think we're getting above my pay grade! A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #20
Well, I didn't find any contemporary examples of consols, but BelgianMadCow Oct 2013 #21
Re: your last sentence: Exactly. A HERETIC I AM Oct 2013 #22
What would stop a future president from issuing scrip to fund things congressrefuses to fund Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #15

landolfi

(234 posts)
2. Wouldn't that still devalue the current debt because it caps the interest?
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:29 PM
Oct 2013

But wouldn't that devalue the bond by capping the amount of interest you can earn and delaying when your proceeds would be available? Which would not be the case for a typical t-note that you allow to mature and then roll over. So now if that was your intention, you're being penalized for the amount of interest you could have earned from the maturity date when the scrip is issued until the debt is retired. And that also means you can't know the downside because you don't know how long it will take to pay. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for something that leaves these morons out of the process. They've now proven that they can't govern, as if there was any doubt before.

landolfi

(234 posts)
5. But, it changes the original contract to less favorable terms, and thus devalues it
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:45 PM
Oct 2013

So it's still a default unless you're paid the face value on the maturity date.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,376 posts)
7. Read the OP again.
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:58 PM
Oct 2013
The scrip would not violate the debt ceiling because it wouldn’t constitute a new borrowing of money backed by the credit of the United States. It would merely be a formal acknowledgment of a pre-existing monetary claim against the United States that the Treasury was not currently able to pay. -

- To avoid any confusion with actual Treasury debt, and to be consistent with the law governing claims against the United States more generally, the scrip would not pay interest in most cases. And unlike debt, it would have no fixed maturity date but rather would become redeemable in cash only when the secretary of the Treasury was able to certify that there’s enough money available in the Treasury’s general fund to cover it.


They way the article is written, there would be a possibility for some gain on the part of the buyer because they would be "allowing financial institutions to buy it at a high percentage of its face value" meaning at a discount to par.

Not bonds that go through the normal auction process.

More like Federal IOU's.

landolfi

(234 posts)
14. I did read it, still default IMNSHO
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:17 PM
Oct 2013

because of changing the terms after the fact. Kind of like what the Repigs are doing with funding the government and debt ceiling.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
4. The effect of this would likely be similar to an actual default.
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:36 PM
Oct 2013

Not surprising that this suggestion comes from a law professor.



BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
6. It would send the message that the United States is a credit risk
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:55 PM
Oct 2013

to the international community, and it would ultimately have the same effect as a default, complete with the nation's credit rating dropping again.

Sure, it will make Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce happy, but I don't see a win here for the president, the Democrats or the country. Just more nicely parsed words, change of terminology, and bells and whistles, but the result is the same.

We need to face up to the fact that the president is powerless to do anything if the House continues to hold this country and its economy hostage.

Corporate Media should attack Republicans for this, and so should the financial industry, instead of trying to find creative ways to force President Obama to do something unconstitutional that will only result in turning the country against the Democratic Party in the coming elections.

Thank god that the president has no intentions of bailing the Republicans out.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,376 posts)
9. That message is already out there and it WON'T make Wall Street "happy".
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:03 PM
Oct 2013

As long as the Treasury can continue to make timely coupon payments and full redemptions on bonds that are maturing, it will not affect the credit rating of Treasury bonds.

They would be two separate things.

Nobody likes a selloff, (OK, Short sellers do) and if we default on a bond or series, then the DOW and the S & P will plummet.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
13. Wall Street *will* be happy to get their money AND to put this president on the path to impeachment.
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:16 PM
Oct 2013

They were never for him to begin with.

We will only default and the nation's credit rating will only drop IF the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, but since Wall Street supports the GOP, that would be their own damn fault.

Taking the power of the purse away from Congress is a lose-lose situation for the president.

I'm certain they're hoping that President Obama steps in and gets them their money while opening himself up to a plethora of court challenges for doing this favor. It would certainly keep AG Holder busy so he wouldn't have time to challenge voter suppression laws for the upcoming elections - striking two birds with a single stone! - but I don't see how this would benefit the president, Democrats, or this country.

President Obama should not have to bail the Republicans' asses out of a mess they have created themselves, and he certainly shouldn't have to be sued for it - which is most likely to happen should he stick his neck out for them.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
8. There's also the use of bonds that pay an interest, but never promise to repay any of the principal
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:00 PM
Oct 2013

these bonds are called consols, and don't count against the debt ceiling, it would seem.

They are the fifth option in a piece on NakedCapitalism:

In two previous posts, here and here, I listed the five options the Administration can use to lessen or nullify the impact of Republican intransigence on increasing the debt limit. I’ll now list them again to emphasize that there is no TINA. The President has options to defeat the debt ceiling without doing the “Great Betrayal.”

1. A selective default strategy by the Executive, prioritizing not paying for things that Congress needed, and perhaps not paying debt to the Fed when it falls due and working with the Fed to get the $2.05 Trillion in bonds that it was holding canceled;

2. An exploding option involving selling a 90-day option to the Fed for purchasing some Federal property for $ 2 Trillion. Then when Congress lifts the debt ceiling, the Treasury could buy back the option for one dollar, or the Fed could simply let the option expire;

3. Using the authority of a 1996 law to mint proof platinum coins with arbitrary face values in the trillions of dollars to fill the Treasury General Account (TGA) with enough money to cease issuing debt instruments, and even enough to pay off the existing debt; and

4. Using the authority of the 14th Amendment to keep issuing debt in defiance of the debt ceiling, while declaring that the debt ceiling legislation was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment in the context of Congressional appropriations passed after the debt ceiling mandating deficit spending.

5. Beowulf has offered yet a fifth option for getting around the debt ceiling by issuing consols. Consols are debt instruments that pay a fixed rate on interest in perpetuity, but never promise principal repayment at a maturity date. The debt ceiling law is written in such a way that what counts against the ceiling is the principal repayment guaranteed by the instrument. Since consols provide no principal repayment, one can have unlimited consol issuance without increasing the debt-subject-to-the-limit.


Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/joe-firestone-stop-the-great-betrayal-kabuki-update.html#FHqzFOBzDxU68T2Z.99

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
10. THAT makes perfect sense,
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:06 PM
Oct 2013

and is the first truly plausible proposal I've seen. But if they want to do this they have to start the preparations now. Yesterday would be even better.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
12. An investor would convert a sum he had now into a perpetual stream
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:15 PM
Oct 2013

of interest payments. Why would that be so bad? Of course, the interest would have to be higher than what a normal bond pays.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,376 posts)
16. No it wouldn't....
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 05:05 PM
Oct 2013

because it is perpetual.

Normal bonds pay a specific coupon because they have a maturity date. If you were able to get a given percentage forever, it can be much lower than the rate on a 30 year bond for example.

There are plenty of similar examples on the US market. They're called Perpetual Preferred Stock. They typically have a $25.00 par value. Ford Motor Company is a good example of a major firm that has issued them in the past. They are almost always "Callable"

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
17. I can follow why the interest could be lower. But these consols aren't callable
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 05:13 PM
Oct 2013

unless I'm understanding them entirely wrong. So these Perpetual Preferred Stock aren't an example then, I think.

Not sure whether there are existing examples of consol use, gonna do a bit of ixquicking on that.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
19. OK, but then the consol would count against the debt limit, so such a provision would then
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 05:16 PM
Oct 2013

Last edited Sun Oct 6, 2013, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

not be advisable, right?

A HERETIC I AM

(24,376 posts)
20. LOL...I think we're getting above my pay grade!
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 06:01 PM
Oct 2013

I suppose it would be possible to issue them as Stock or equity securities, as opposed to Bonds or debt securities.

If that were the case then no, they wouldn't count against the debt limit because they wouldn't be debt. If they were equity securities then they wouldn't pay "interest". They would pay dividends. If that were the case then there would be no need for a call provision because the Treasury or the Fed (who ever issued them) could just buy them back.

Unfortunately, I didn't take my math serious enough in school, and as the idea of working with the Federal Reserve or the Treasury might seems attractive to me today, I have no idea whether they could or would or are even legally able to issue such an instrument.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
21. Well, I didn't find any contemporary examples of consols, but
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 06:10 PM
Oct 2013

it would seem the UK government used them in 1752, and still pays interest on them to this day.

Originally called consolidated annuities, the Consol is one of the earliest forms of government bonds. Primitive compared to the modern day 10 year bond, it had no maturity, and paid a coupon in perpetuity. It requires an act of the British Parliament to redeem them (likely not gonna happen with rates this low).
from here.

But thanks for your insights! Who cares about pay grades. I say you're worth..more

On edit: all I wanted to ask with my previous post was: you said such securities CAN come with a provision that makes them callable. I just thought, well then don't include such a provision.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,376 posts)
22. Re: your last sentence: Exactly.
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 06:24 PM
Oct 2013

But then there is no way to retire them, should the need or desire come about.

Yeah, I read a Wiki entry on them because I had never heard the term either! But the first line or two of that entry makes perfect sense. Kind of a mix between a preferred share and an annuity.

Hell, there are a lot of questions I have about them as well. Your link says they trade. OK...over the counter or on an exchange? How would that secondary market be managed? What would the minimums be? Can any Joe Schmuck like me buy $1000 worth? Or do I have to buy them in blocks of a million? That sort of thing.

It is a subject that I find fascinating, to say the least. Bonds in general are a security that I find very interesting.

Edited to say, thanks very much for the compliment!

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
15. What would stop a future president from issuing scrip to fund things congressrefuses to fund
Sun Oct 6, 2013, 04:18 PM
Oct 2013

i.e. wars, oil subsidies, etc?

Serious question.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Best solution I have seen...