As we get closer to the debt limit, the big spenders in Washington are becoming increasingly hysterical about the supposed possibility of default if politicians lose the ability to borrow more money.
I testified yesterday to the Joint Economic Committee on “The Economic Costs of Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship” and I explained (reiterating points I made back in 2011) that there is zero chance of default.
Why? Because, as I outline beginning about the 3:10 mark of the video, annual interest payments are about $230 billion and annual tax collections are approaching $3 trillion.
I actually made five points in my testimony. The first three should be quite familiar to regular readers.
First, America’s main fiscal problem is that government is too big. That’s the disease Deficits and debt are symptoms of that underlying problem.
Second, you achieve good fiscal policy by following “Mitchell’s Golden Rule” so that government grows slower than private sector economic output.
Third, we’ve made some progress in the last two years thanks to genuine fiscal restraint, and we can balance the budget in a very short period of time if lawmakers impose a very modest bit of spending discipline in the future.
The fourth point, which I already discussed above, is that there’s no risk of default – unless the Obama Administration deliberately wants that to happen. But that’s simply not a realistic possibility.
My fifth and final point deserves a bit of extra discussion. I explained that Greece is now suffering through a very deep recession, with record unemployment and harsh economic conditions. I asked the Committee a rhetorical question: Wouldn’t it have been preferable if there was some sort of mechanism, say, 15 years ago that would have enabled some lawmakers to throw sand in the gears so that the government couldn’t issue any more debt?
Yes, there would have been some budgetary turmoil at the time, but it would have been trivial compared to the misery the Greek people currently are enduring.
I closed by drawing an analogy to the situation in Washington. We know we’re on an unsustainable path. Do we want to wait until we hit a crisis before we address the over-spending crisis? Or do we want to take prudent and modest steps today – such as genuine entitlement reform and spending caps – to ensure prosperity and long-run growth.
Seems like the answer should be simple…at least if you’re not trying to get reelected by bribing voters with their own money.
P.S. My argument for short-term fighting today to avoid fiscal crisis in the future was advanced in greater detail by a Wall Street expert back in 2011.
P.P.S. You can enjoy some good debt limit cartoons by clicking here and here.
[…] 2016, here’s what I said about the debt limitduring some congressional testimony (and I made very similar points in some 2013 […]
[…] in 2016, here’s what I said about the debt limit during some congressional testimony (and I made very similar points in some 2013 […]
[…] testified to Congress about this issue in 2013 and in 2016. If the debt limit isn’t raised, meaning no ability to issue new debt, that would […]
[…] I’ve said over the years in television interviews, at press conferences, and in congressional testimony (on more than one occasion), there won’t be a default for the simple reason that the federal […]
[…] for years that debt limit fights are harmless since there’s no risk of default. I even explained to the Senate Budget Committee a few years ago that it would be easy for the Treasury Department to “prioritize” payments to ensure […]
[…] some of what I said as part of my testimony to the Joint Economic Committee in […]
[…] some of what I said as part of my testimony to the Joint Economic Committee in […]
[…] Here’s some of what I told lawmakers. […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/testifying-to-the-joint-economic-committee-about-deb… […]
[…] j’ai eu de nombreuses conversations avec des journalistes expliquant que les États-Unis ne feraient pas défaut si le plafond de la dette n’était pas augmenté. L’état fédéral, je leur ai expliqué, collectera 12 fois plus de recettes que nécessaire […]
[…] more disturbing, I had several conversations with journalists explaining that the United States would not default if the debt limit wasn’t raised. The federal government, I explained, will be collecting 12 times as much revenue as required to […]
[…] “The White House wants people to believe genuine default is likely even though tax receipts this fiscal year are expected to be more than $3 trillion and interest on the debt is projected to be only $237 billion. In other words, the Treasury will collect more than 12 times as much revenue as needed to pay interest on the debt. Even someone like me, with my well-known views on the incompetence of the federal government, thinks that the Treasury Department will have no problem figuring out how to avoid default.” […]
[…] The White House wants people to believe genuine default is likely even though tax receipts this fiscal year are expected to be more than $3 trillion and interest on the debt is projected to be only $237 billion. In other words, the Treasury will collect more than 12 times as much revenue as needed to pay interest on the debt. Even someone like me, with my well-known views on the incompetence of the federal government, thinks that the Treasury Department will have no problem figuring out how to avoid default. […]
[…] Testifying to the Joint Economic Committee about “Debt Limit Brinksmanship” | Internatio… __________________ White 2008 CRD Auto plus a few bits. #29 Nothing but Patrols since 1980. It doesn't take 100 Leftists to prove me wrong; it takes a single fact. (apologies to Einstein) ________________ […]
[…] 3. The White House wants people to believe genuine default is likely even though tax receipts this fiscal year are expected to be more than $3 trillion and interest on the debt is projected to be only $237 billion. In other words, the Treasury will collect more than 12 times as much revenue as needed to pay interest on the debt. Even someone like me, with my well-known views on the incompetence of the federal government, thinks that the Treasury Department will have no problem figuring out how to avoid default. […]
[…] victory and – at worst – a political draw in the big shutdown fights of 1995-1996. And my recent testimony to the Joint Economic Committee explained why there’s no risk of default if there’s a fight on the debt […]
[…] and – at worst – a political draw in the big shutdown fights of 1995-1996. And my recent testimony to the Joint Economic Committee explained why there’s no risk of default if there’s a fight on the debt […]
[…] of like when Chairman Brady mentioned Mitchell’s Golden Rule in his opening statement when I testified last week to the Joint Economic […]
Dan-
I have become a great fan, and in fact, your writings have helped me become more of a libertarian every day (converted conservative). I see in your posts that you are testifying before congress, and speaking at forums. What I am missing is how and why these events are not covered by the media. Were we in the days of the founding fathers, yours would be equivalent to the voice of a Patrick Henry. Please keep the conversation going.