Replies

We spend $60B/month more than we take in and must fund that $60B gap with additional debt issuance, which we can't do unless we increase the debt limit. The only way to avoid increasing the debt limit is to reduce expenses by $60B/month. Prioritizing debt principal and interest payments doesn't avoid default if you cannot issue new debt because you've hit the debt ceiling ... and you must issue new debt to both replace existing debt falling due and fund the additional $60B/month ... unless you cut expenses by $60B/month. There is no way around it. Now there are half a dozen short-term schemes being discussed to avoid the grim reaper for a month or two, but they are either legally questionable or just won't work: 14th amendment, issuing high-coupon debt, etc. and even then it's only a short-term stop-gap and we're back to the wall in December.

There is so much confusion surrounding this issue, particularly conflating non-funding (CR) and the debt ceiling.

Bottom line: unless Congress increases the debt limit, the US will default on its obligations at some point, like a few weeks, after October 17th.

Bottom line: unless Congress increases the debt limit, the US will default on its obligations at some point...

There you go again. You are using the exact language obomber wants you to use.

Do you really not see the difference between default on the debt and default on obligations ?

My understanding is that debt interest payments require about 9% of what the government actually collects in taxes. Assuming that is correct, my point was that the government should have enough money to make these payments without taking on additional debt. But because, as you point out, there is a gap - you put the monthly number at 60b — some otherwise required expenditures would have to be held up in order to prioritize the interest payments (and presumably other life or death necessary expenses such as Social Security and defense....). The issue is whether the President has the authority to prioritize payments as necessary to avoid default and make other critical payments as he deems necessary. I think he does have that authority and some people do not think he does (which would presumably mean that if the government falls even one penny short, it cannot pay anything to anyone). Does this make sense to you or are you saying something else?