Macro Monkey SaysDOA – Debt On Arrival The countdown is well underway – as you read this, we currently sit 22 days away from the Treasury Secretary’s predicted “X Date,” or the date on which the U.S. defaults on its debt. Yesterday, we were 23 days away from that June 1st projected deadline, and with that looming deadline, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy popped over to President Joey B’s crib to spit some game about how they can *not* deliberately and irreparably eviscerate trust in the U.S. financial system. Needless to say, they didn’t solve sh*t. This wasn’t a surprise; most analysts expected yesterday’s talks to be DOA – or debt on arrival – and they were right. Now, we’re three weeks and 24hrs from actually defaulting on our debts for the first time ever. I say “actually defaulting” because the U.S. did technically default on its debt obligations in 1979, but this was due to a glitch from the word processor used to schedule when individual paper checks would be sent out…not exactly the situation we face now. Now, we’re worried about the ongoing glitch in human processing power, not digital. We’ve been laser-focused on the debt ceiling talks as default now seems about as likely as a coin flip, and given the implications, it could very well become the economic story of the year or even decade. But let’s see why we’re “playing chicken” and “holding a gun to the head” of the U.S. economy. As mentioned, there are essentially two key parties in this debate, with their goals and incentives pulling in opposite directions. These include: - President Biden and the Democrats
- Goal: Raise borrowing limit (aka “the debt ceiling”) without agreeing to spending cuts
- Incentive: Win re-election and maintain control of the Senate and/or gain power in the House
- Kevin McCarthy and Republicans
- Goal: Raising the borrowing limit only with commensurate spending cuts
- Incentive: Gain power in Congress, win re-election, and reduce non-military government spending
Starting with Biden and his pals, their refusal to negotiate spending as part of debt ceiling talks is the sticking point. Essentially, the argument is that budget debates for FY’2024 will begin in a few months anyway, as next year’s budget gets solidified. For McCarthy, it’s a little bit more complicated. Non-hardo Republicans like McCarthy may be okay with a lack of negotiation for the time being, but we’ll never know it as the second this is admitted, the Speaker will lose the support of a 20 or so group of those Hardo Republicans he needs to get anything done. Moreover, these individuals would likely call for his removal from the Speakership as in case you forgot, it took quite a while for McCarthy to win the position anyway, and a “no increase to the borrowing limit without spending cuts” agreement was part of what won him the seat. So, McCarthy finds himself in between a rock and a hard place. He either 1) refuses to negotiate and risks the Dems not budging, thus leading to a default, or 2) he does negotiate and gets the debt ceiling raised, only to immediately be removed from the Speakership at the House’s next session. As Speaker, McCarthy has full control over the bills and issues that are brought to the House floor. Naturally, he has not allowed a “clean” debt-limit-raise bill, meaning one that comes with no spending cuts, to come to the floor. But but but, Dems last week announced their intention to force a vote on a clean raise through a discharge petition. A discharge position is one of those weird workarounds the Founding Daddies gave us that allows the House to bypass the Speaker’s ability to control the bills brought for debate. They’d need 218 House votes to pass this, of which 213 Democrats are already locked in. It would only take 5 Republicans to break the line for a clean debt-limit-raise bill to hit the floor for a vote. And McCarthy would probably thank his lucky stars if this happened. This would force the vote to go to the floor, increasing the odds of not defaulting and doing so without McCarthy being forced to concede anything and likely maintain his Speakership. Did that make sense? I hope the rambling, discombobulated style in which the situation was described encompasses the rambling, discombobulated nature of this debate in Washington. Regardless, 22 days, apes. Get your Representative’s number locked into speed dial; you just might need it soon. |
Non nisi ut ipsam sint quo. Eum rerum similique quis dicta nobis animi. Voluptatum incidunt beatae error qui tenetur omnis labore.
Et odit aut quo autem. Ab eum corporis impedit quibusdam est. Ut ut eum odit quae voluptas odio.
Numquam libero sapiente sunt consectetur. Animi sequi aut illum doloremque odio consequatur.
Tenetur dignissimos in saepe dolor. Ullam cupiditate distinctio eum nesciunt voluptatum autem nihil. Aspernatur facilis libero quas excepturi. Ducimus quisquam animi laborum quo quo et molestiae. Natus voluptate dolore hic eveniet quia quasi eius. Rerum numquam maiores ut earum reprehenderit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...