Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Yellen puts Congress on notice over impending debt default date: 5 essential reads on what’s at stake

Matt Williams is a Senior Breaking News and International Editor with The Conversation.

Lawmakers have been given notice of a new deadline if they are to avoid a damaging default on U.S. debt: June 1, 2023.


If Congress fails to raise the nation’s borrowing limit by that date, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned, then the federal government risks being “unable to continue to satisfy all of the government’s obligations.”

Giving herself a little wiggle room by saying that it is pretty hard to work out the exact date of default, Yellen was clear on the potential impact: “If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, it would cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position, and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.”

Yikes!

The warning may spur leaders in Congress into action. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy fired the starting pistol on negotiations over the debt ceiling in April, laying out the criteria under which Republicans would accept an increase. But McCarthy’s proposals – which have since passed a narrow vote in the House – have been shot down by the Biden administration for having strings attached that Democrats deemed unacceptable.

Explaining why the U.S. has a debt ceiling in the first place – and why it is a constant source of political wrangling – is a complicated matter. Here are five articles from The Conversation’s archive that provide some of the answers.

1. What exactly is the debt ceiling?

So, some basics. The debt ceiling was established by the U.S. Congress in 1917. It limits the total national debt by setting out a maximum amount that the government can borrow.

Steven Pressman, an economist at The New School, explained the original aim was “to let then-President Woodrow Wilson spend the money he deemed necessary to fight World War I without waiting for often-absent lawmakers to act. Congress, however, did not want to write the president a blank check, so it limited borrowing to US$11.5 billion and required legislation for any increase.”

Since then, the debt ceiling has been increased dozens of times. It currently stands at $31.4 trillion – a figure already reached. As a result, the Treasury has taken “extraordinary measures” to enable it to keep borrowing without breaching the ceiling. Such measures, however, can only be temporary – meaning at one point Congress will have to act to lift the ceiling or default on its debt obligations, which is expected to happen in July or August.

2. ‘Catastrophic’ consequences

How bad could it be if the U.S. does default on its debt obligations? Well, pretty bad, according to Michael Humphries, deputy chair of business administration at Touro University, who wrote two articles on the consequences.

“The knock-on effect of the U.S. defaulting would be catastrophic. Investors such as pension funds and banks holding U.S. debt could fail. Tens of millions of Americans and thousands of companies that depend on government support could suffer. The dollar’s value could collapse, and the U.S. economy would most likely sink back into recession,” he wrote.

3. Undermining the dollar

And that’s not all.

Such a default could undermine the U.S. dollar’s position as a “unit of account,” which makes it a widely used currency in global finance and trade. Loss of this status would be a severe economic and political blow to the U.S. But Humphries conceded that putting a dollar value on the price of a default is hard:

“The truth is, we really don’t know what will happen or how bad it will get. The scale of the damage caused by a U.S. default is hard to calculate in advance because it has never happened before.”

4. Can McCarthy make a deal?

Many of these concessions are known, such as allowing a single member of the House to call for a vote to remove him as speaker. But there many be others that remain secret and could be influencing McCarthy’s decision-making, argued Stanley M. Brand, a law professor at Penn State and former general counsel for the House. These could make it much harder to reach a deal with Biden over the debt ceiling.

“Some of the new rules spawned by McCarthy’s concessions may appear to democratize the procedures for considering and passing legislation. But they are likely to make it difficult for members to get the working majority necessary to pass legislation,” Brand explained. “That could make things such as raising the statutory debt ceiling, which is necessary to avert a government shutdown and financial crisis, and passing legislation to fund the government, difficult.”

5. The GOP endgame: A balanced budget

Another condition McCarthy agreed to in January is to push for a “balanced budget” within 10 years.

The U.S. government hasn’t had a balanced budget since 2001, the year President Bill Clinton left office. Linda J. Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public policy and public finance at Harvard Kennedy School who worked in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, explained how they achieved that rare feat and why it’s unlikely to be repeated today.

“Back in 1997, after the smoke cleared, both the Clinton administration and the Republicans in Congress were able to claim some political credit for the resulting budget surpluses,” she wrote. “But – crucially – both parties recognized that a deal was in the best interest of the country and were able to line up their respective members to get the votes in Congress needed to approve it. The contrast with the current political landscape is stark.”

This article originally appeared in The Conversation.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less