I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” Obama said, according to excerpts of the interview released before its broadcast.
“There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Obama said. He said veterans checks and disability benefits could also be affected without a deal.
For a while now, President Obama has been suggesting that if Treasury were to prioritize payments in order to not default on the debt, it might do so on the backs of seniors by not paying their Social Security checks. I find this particularly bothersome. First of all, I assume that the president and Treasury would want to do everything they could to pay seniors rather than scare them. Second, there do exist ways — messy, for sure, but possible — for Treasury to pay those benefits regardless, which is what the president should say. A failure to use these “gimmicks” in a scenario where they became necessary would be stunning.
According to a Bipartisan Policy Center’s report, on August 3, revenue coming in will amount to $12 billion, while we will be scheduled to spend some $32 billion — most of it in Social Security checks. How do we make up the difference?
Well, first remember how Social Security works. Starting now, the difference between payroll-tax revenue and Social Security benefits is made up by redeeming the IOUs in the Social Security Trust Funds. Intra-governmental debt counts against the debt ceiling. In order to pay back this IOU, Treasury has to borrow the money, which increases the debt held by the public by the same amount. In other words, if Treasury were to redeem the needed Social Security bonds and issue new marketable Treasury bonds to make good on them, it would be a one-for-one swap and do nothing for the debt ceiling problem.
There is a potential glitch, having to do with whether Treasury has the authority to use payroll tax money to pay benefits rather than “invest.” However, history seems to say it does, according to the Washington Post “Fact Checker,” Glenn Kessler:
There is a technical wrinkle involving the fact that payroll taxes that are collected are supposed to be immediately turned into Treasury securities, but there could be ways around that, such as putting the monies in a noninterest bearing account, as during the 1985 debt crisis. “Although some of the Secretary’s actions appear in retrospect to have been in violation of the requirements of the Social Security Act, we cannot say that the Secretary acted unreasonably given the extraordinary situation in which he was operating,” the General Accounting Office later concluded.
[. . .]
Still, during the 1996 debt limit crisis, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin announced that Treasury did not have sufficient funds to pay Social Security benefits. Congress rushed to pass a special law that said the Social Security benefits did not count against the debt limit. Was this designed to pressure the Republican-led Congress, or had even a shrewd operator like Rubin run out of options? However, Congress later that year passed a law, 121-104, that codified Treasury’s authority to use Social Security trust funds to pay benefits and administration expenses in the event a debt ceiling is reached, which could give the administration the authority they need in the current crisis.
The Congressional Research Service has also explored this question in a series of reports this year. The answer is unfortunately inconclusive and buried in a footnote: “Under normal procedures Treasury pays Social Security benefits from the General Fund and offsets this by redeeming an equivalent amount of the trust funds’ holdings of government debt. In order to pay Social Security benefits, and depending on the government’s cash position at the time, Treasury may need to issue new public debt to raise the cash needed to pay benefits. Treasury may be unable to issue new public debt, however, because of the debt limit. Social Security benefit payments may be delayed or jeopardized if the Treasury does not have enough cash on hand to pay benefits.”
Another interesting element is Treasury’s ability to “disinvest” by redeeming some of the securities in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. As I pointed out earlier this week, Treasury did it during the last debt-ceiling crisis in 1995–1996, and that brought some cash flow into Treasury’s coffers to pay for Social Security benefits until the crisis was solved. According to the monthly Treasury Statement, those funds amount to roughly $700 billion.
In his “Fact Checker” article, Kessler quotes Dean Baker and my colleague Jason Fichtner, both of whom think that Social Security benefits could continue to be paid:
“I’m now 99.9 percent positive that Treasury has legal authority to pay Social Security benefits in both cases of a government shutdown and hitting the debt limit, since the payment of benefits shouldn’t affect the debt limit because it reduces the trust funds to the exact extent that it increase publicly-held debt,” Fichtner said. “What I don’t know is whether Treasury has to pay benefits if it chooses not to.”
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research who has derided “the phony crisis” of Social Security, also believes the checks could keep flowing. “I would think that they could legally pay Social Security by reducing the obligations of the fund,” he said. “It no doubt would be a huge political issue.”
And Kessler rightfully concludes:
The president obviously does not want to show all of his cards in this high-stakes game of poker. Raising the specter of not issuing Social Security checks is designed to raise pressure on Republicans, but could also cause angst among the elderly. At this point the answer is unclear but we become suspicious when politicians begin to use “may,” rather than speak in definitive sentences. If Treasury has the ability to keep paying Social Security benefits, even if the debt limit is reached, the Obama administration should make that clear. The Treasury Department’s new statement begins to add some clarity. We will keep watching how the president speaks about this issue
So it seems to me that it’s time to be reassuring rather than scary, Mr. President. Then it’s time to make sure that Treasury does everything it can to send those checks. Yes, all of this is messy, but it beats not paying seniors.
Why would Obama stop, or want to stop, when what he is doing is so effective?
I find it to be pretty funny, that you consider 'scaring seniors' to be bothersome, but have little to write on the topic of how bothersome it is that a group of politicians would deliberately engineer a scenario, on purpose, where 'gimmicks' must be used in order to support our obligations to them. As a negotiating method, to gain power that the GOP wouldn't normally have.
I would suggest examining the beam in thine own eye...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is indeed rich. I don't recall Ms. de Rugy cautioning the GOP from railing about fictitious "death panels" or "killing off grandma."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRationing healthcare is a form of a death panel.
Perhaps Rep Ryan can explain:
External Link
Now, go back to scaring our elders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUntil the ACA, unelected 'panels' of health insurance middlemen, decided what procedures they would and would not cover. They would often decide that a particular procedure was 'experimental' even if it was likely to save your life.
Death panels indeed exist. They are run by private industry and because there is no real competition (exempt from anti-trust, even), they are not accountable to anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKilling of grandma???
WOuld that include commercials showing grandma being pushed off a cliff.
By the way, the "death panels" exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's just that Obama was smart enough not to label them "death panels".
"By the way, the "death panels" exist."
No, they don't. This is a pure lie on your part.
What exists, as part of Obamacare, isn't a 'death panel' at all, and to use such language is, well. As irresponsible as what Mrs. De Rugy claims Obama is doing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you deliberately ignorant?
“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”
External Link
Grassley stepped in it further:
"Sen. Charles Grassley explains to Bob Schieffer why he used comments about 'pulling the plug on Grandma' at a health care reform town hall. He actually cited President Obama for first using that phrase at one of his own functions.
"He also admits regarding the possibility of there being a 'death panel': 'It won't do that,' but he insisted his constituents are 'concerned' about it."
External Link
As to Obama "first using that phrase":
"The New York Times cropped a quote from President Obama's Labor Day speech to suggest that Obama responded to health care reform critics who 'say we're going to pull the plug on Grandma' by conceding that policies he supports would allow for such actions to occur. In fact, in his Labor Day speech, Obama explicitly referred to claims that health care reform is 'going to pull the plug on Grandma'" as 'lies.""
External Link
Facts do indeed have a liberal bias.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. de Rugy's focus has always (or very nearly always, at least) been on Economic Policy, and on analyzing the data related to economic policy.
In this instance, Veronica is accurately identifying the President's political tactic, and juxtaposing that tactic against economic realities.
There is no need for the President to suggest that senior citizens will not get their SS checks, except as a predictable political tool to intimidate people who disagree with his stance.
Regarding the 'fictitious death panels' comment, which has been addressed ad nauseum here and many other places... The term 'death panel' is evocative and probably hyperbolic, but if health care decisions are made from a resource-conscious central planning authority (such as the IPAB), the result is going to be be an attempt to 'equalize' and 'normalize' payments, procedures, and treatments. There will be unelected bureaucrats deciding (as they already do in Canada and the UK) that the government should not be paying for certain drugs, or for more than ___ doses of ___ drug per year. It is not a difficult or complicated leap from there to denying care to a 90-year-old with a terminal disease in favor of treating a 30-year-old in the early stages of breast cancer.
The solution to the health care question is simple: restore the decision-making power and the responsibility for care and payment to the individual (and/or family).
The solution to the 'debt crisis' is less simple, but equally principled: make the government stop spending money it does not have.
Pretty much everything else is politics and posturing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There will be unelected bureaucrats deciding (as they already do in Canada and the UK) that the government should not be paying for certain drugs, or for more than ___ doses of ___ drug per year."
This is no different than our current situation. The only difference is that the panel works for the gov't instead of for your insurance company.
"The solution to the health care question is simple: restore the decision-making power and the responsibility for care and payment to the individual (and/or family)."
You have never had that, and never will, under any modern health care system. Unless you are some super-rich guy who is paying his bills out of his own pocket, you've never had decision-making power over your care and payment for medical services. Your insurance company has.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem, Veronique, is that you're assuming he *wants* to pay those bills. I think Obama would be happy to see grandma eating out of a garbage bin in the alley if it would increase his chances of being re-elected.
@TheFish: Who "deliberately engineer[ed]" this scenario? The GOP? How did they do so? By spending outrageous amounts of money that the government didn't have, racing us toward the aforementioned debt ceiling? Go sell your crazy somewhere else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Who "deliberately engineer[ed]" this scenario? The GOP?"
Yes, that's correct; through their insistence that the Debt Limit be used as a hostage tactic.
"By spending outrageous amounts of money that the government didn't have, racing us toward the aforementioned debt ceiling"
Yes, the GOP also did exactly that for most of the last decade. Even during the last two Congresses, the GOP has been right up there with the Dems putting earmarks and spending in bills, approving huge defense appropriations, and such things as making sure that jet engines that nobody wants or needs still get made - just so the pork keeps flowing to their districts.
You really ought to wake up to the fact that both parties are responsible for where we are today. It wasn't just the Democrats who got our government where it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour tired old argument "The Republican's did it" is getting old. Sure Bush and the Repbulicans spent too much. That's why they went extinct. But you're dismissing the fact that Obama and the Democrat congress has made those 8 years pale in comparison. Also that the Republican's proposal is straight forward - REDUCE SPENDING! Wow! If that's not underhanded, I don't know what is. As a liberal, you want to continue spending and go back to the trough - My wallet! Well, those days are hopefully about over and frivolous pet projects and money pits are coming to an end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Sure Bush and the Repbulicans spent too much. That's why they went extinct. "
What do you mean, Extinct? Last time I checked, every single member of the GOP leadership was active back then, and spending back then, and is still active and spending now.
"As a liberal, you want to continue spending and go back to the trough - My wallet! Well, those days are hopefully about over and frivolous pet projects and money pits are coming to an end."
I'm not a Liberal, but I do believe that we ALL should be contributing more to settle our country's finances. Whether you agree with the spending or not, the debts are real and they belong to everyone. That's a fact. We can't dodge our responsibility by pretending that they don't exist, by saying 'deficits don't matter(thanks Cheney),' or by cutting spending alone.
"Well, those days are hopefully about over and frivolous pet projects and money pits are coming to an end."
Except, they're not. From either party. Just look at the example I cited above - the jet engine that Would Not Die... hard to blame that one on the Dems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, the Republicans insisting that taxes not be raised is a tactic.
However, the Democrats insisting that taxes must be raised, is not a "tactic".
Nice double standard you got there Fish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's always a clean increase, that's what the Democrats asked for to begin with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Dems are not, in fact, insisting that 'taxes be raised.' They are only insisting that taxes be raised IF spending is to be significantly cut, as a part of the 'deal.'
That's how a deal works, yaknow? Both sides give in a little from what they would really want. Negotiating 101.
The GOP would be, and is, perfectly able to pass a CLEAN debt increase at any time, and I highly doubt Obama would refuse to sign it due to a lack of tax increases. So, no; your statement above, purporting equivalence between the two positions, is incorrect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, right, they *could* just pass the "clean" increase - then the Democrats can simply keep running spending up through that ceiling, too. And, if the GOP does what the Democrats want, what's the point of having two parties, again?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy then, did the GOP pass clean increase after clean increase under the last prez? Why the sudden outbreak of Fiscal Hawks in the party? Why the insistence, if ending the debt and deficit is so important, of not raising taxes one dime?
The argument just doesn't add up when you look at past behavior. That behavior reveals the current discussion to be a sham.
If you really thought that the two parties were 'the same' if a clean debt ceiling is passed, you must have been considering them to be the same for the last decade or so, because that's exactly what has been happening for a long, long time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, C'MON! Because someone in the past did something "wrong" everyone ever associated with them can never claim to believe anything else in perpetuity?!? Cut the cr-p!
"Why the sudden outbreak of Fiscal Hawks in the party?"
Really? You missed that whole Tea Party thing in 2010? Were you holed up somewhere, taking tea with the purists?
And, yes, I have considered Republicans to be Democrat-lite for quite some time. I'm a conservative, not a Republican. Yes, yes, I am registered with a political party so that I can vote in the primaries, and I don't think I have voted against Republicans except in local politics in a long time, if ever - but I am a conservative first and foremost. Heck, I'm closer to libertarian in some areas.
"Republicans did it, too" is NOT an argument about solving our nation's ills - it is a cop-out designed to make yourself look holier-than-thou. Stop posing and get on board to push a solution!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, no, I did not notice the weird conjunction of "Tea Party" with "taking tea" when I previewed. I should have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse