Regulatory: The Debt Ceiling Approacheth
If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the consequences could be serious.
April 12, 2011 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Now that the threat of a government shutdown has passed, disagreements over the country's fiscal policy will be channeled into debates over raising the debt ceiling. The political maneuvering over this issue could jeopardize the country's single greatest asset–the willingness of other countries to do business in our money.
The debt ceiling is established by a statute that caps the authority of the treasury to borrow money to finance budget deficits. Relatively few countries have such self-imposed limits on their ability to borrow, for most countries, their ability to borrow is determined by the market, through the rate of interest that lenders demand to buy its bonds.
The debt ceiling does not control agencies' ability to spend money, but limits only treasury's ability to borrow to pay our debts. Since the deficit may exceed $1 trillion this year, a tidal wave of bills will be presented for payment. The treasury will reach the debt ceiling in early summer, after it expends the tax revenues received on April 15th and June 15th. Unless the debt ceiling is raised by then, the treasury will have no cash and no ability to borrow money to pay these bills. The U.S. would default on its debts, both foreign and domestic.
The government has defaulted on its debts twice before, when the dollar was not the world's reserve currency. In 1862, to finance the Civil War, the government stopped paying gold for domestic debts but instead issued greenbacks, paper notes that Congress made legal tender in place of gold. The government, however, continued to pay principal and interest on its bonds in gold, and Congress dedicated tariff revenues (payable in gold) to fund these obligations. The United States thereby maintained some ability to borrow abroad, and in 1878, we resumed paying all debts in gold. In 1933, as part of the anti-Depression effort, the government finally abandoned the gold standard and drastically reduced the amount of gold it would pay for a dollar of indebtedness. This partial default on our obligations was an important component of the government's soft money policy to facilitate economic recovery.
It is difficult to predict the consequences if the debt ceiling is not raised and the issuer of the world's reserve currency defaults. Debt and currency markets would face an unprecedented crisis. The price of U.S. bonds likely would fall significantly, and the interest rate demanded on future borrowings would increase dramatically. The value of many other assets, including those that financial institutions must mark to market, also would be compromised.
For a few days, the treasury could try to limit the collateral damage by prioritizing its cash flow to repay principal and interest on government bonds. But these steps would be a palliative; default could be avoided only by passage of new legislation raising the debt ceiling. By the time the treasury was reauthorized to borrow, substantial damage would already have occurred. The government would have undermined the reliability of its currency and its status as a reserve currency. Creditors would reduce their willingness to hold and conduct transactions in dollars, and lenders would demand higher interest rates for dollar borrowings, to reflect the “country risk” of lending to a government whose dysfunctional political system had precipitated a default.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column. Read John Cooney's next column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1'I Couldn't Believe It': Attorney Jim Walden Petitions US Court for Right to Run for NYC Mayor as an Independent
- 2Pittsburgh Jury Tries to Award $22M Against J&J in Talc Case Despite Handing Up Defense Verdict
- 3Judiciary Panel Questions Authority to Make Attorney Admissions Rule for US Trial Courts
- 4A&O Shearman Lost 15 Asia Partners in a Year
- 5Spin-Off Firm Leaves Reed Smith Without Richmond Lobbying Practice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250