BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label US Treasury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Treasury. Show all posts
15 October 2025
02 March 2013
The Sequester, Explained 1MAR13 & Debt versus Deficit: What’s the Difference?
MOTHER JONES does a great job of explaining the sequester in this piece. Before going there, because there is so much confusion over the federal debt and federal deficit (they are not the same thing) take a look at these (if you are interested). This from the Treasury Dept
GAO's federal simulations show that absent policy changes, the federal government faces a rapid and unsustainable growth in debt. Simulations of the state and local government sector show that not only the federal government faces fiscal challenges that will have a profound effect on government over the coming decades. ENTERING 2013 Perspectives on Fiscal and Performance Challenges Facing Government GAO-13-388CG, Feb 12, 2013 http://www.gao.gov/search?q=federal+deficit&facets=a%3A1%3A%7Bs%3A10%3A%22topic_term%22%3Bs%3A19%3A%22Budget+and+Spending%22%3B%7D&search_type=Solr
What is the difference between the public debt and the deficit?
The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year. Receipts include the money the Government takes in from income, excise and social insurance taxes as well as fees and other income. Outlays include all Federal spending including social security and Medicare benefits along with all other spending ranging from medical research to interest payments on the debt. When there is a deficit, Treasury must borrow the money needed for the government to pay its bills.
We borrow the money by selling Treasury securities like T-bills, notes, Treasury Inflation-Protected securities and savings bonds to the public. Additionally, the Government Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (intragovernmental holdings) then become part of the total debt.
One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits. For information concerning the deficit, visit the Financial Management Service website to view the Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government. You can read more on this topic in the Federal Borrowing and Debt chapter of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the most recent budget. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm On the federal debt, from the GAO Government Accountability Office
How large is the federal debt? View details
(also known as intragovernmental debt holdings), such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. More at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html And then there is this from the GAO
Quick Links:
Federal Debt and the Fiscal OutlookGAO's federal simulations show that absent policy changes, the federal government faces a rapid and unsustainable growth in debt. Simulations of the state and local government sector show that not only the federal government faces fiscal challenges that will have a profound effect on government over the coming decades. ENTERING 2013 Perspectives on Fiscal and Performance Challenges Facing Government GAO-13-388CG, Feb 12, 2013 http://www.gao.gov/search?q=federal+deficit&facets=a%3A1%3A%7Bs%3A10%3A%22topic_term%22%3Bs%3A19%3A%22Budget+and+Spending%22%3B%7D&search_type=Solr
Today is Sequestration Day! To celebrate, all of your most burning sequestration questions are answered right here. Enjoy.
Where did the whole idea of sequestration originate? It goes back to 1985. The tax cuts of Ronald's Reagan early years, combined with his aggressive defense buildup, produced a growing budget deficit that eventually prompted passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.GRH set out a series of ambitious deficit reduction targets, and to put teeth into them it specified that if the targets weren't met, money would automatically be "sequestered," or held back, by the Treasury Department from the agencies to which it was originally appropriated. The act was declared unconstitutional in 1986, and a new version was passed in 1987.
Sequestration never really worked, though, and it was repealed in 1990 and replaced by a new budget deal. After that, it disappeared down the Washington, DC, memory hole for the next 20 years.
What about the 2013 version? Where did that come from? In the summer of 2011, Republicans decided to hold the country hostage, insisting that they'd refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to substantial deficit reduction. After months of negotiations over a "grand bargain" finally broke down in July, Republicans proposed a plan that would (a) make some cuts immediately and (b) create a bipartisan committee to propose further cuts down the road. But they wanted some kind of automatic trigger in case the committee couldn't agree on those further cuts, so the White House hauled out sequestration from the dustbin of history as an enforcement mechanism. It would go into effect automatically if no deal was reached.
In the end, no immediate cuts were made, but a "supercommittee" was set up to propose $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction later in the year. To make sure everyone was motivated to make a deal, the sequester was designed to be brutal: a set of immediate, across-the-board cuts to both defense spending and domestic spending, starting on January 1, 2013. The idea was that everyone would hate this so much they'd be sure to agree on a substitute.
Needless to say, no such agreement was reached. So now we're stuck with the automatic sequestration cuts.
How big is the sequester? You'd think this would be an easy question to answer. In fact, it's surprisingly complicated! Are you ready?
The basic amount of the sequester is $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. But when you reduce spending, you also reduce interest on the national debt. This means that we only need $984 billion in actual program cuts. And since it's for 10 years, naturally that means we divide by nine to get annual spending cuts of $109 billion. For FY2013, this comes to $12 billion per month, because there are only nine months from January (when the sequester begins) through the end of the fiscal year in September.
But wait! The fiscal cliff deal in January delayed the sequester until March 1, so it also lopped off two months of cuts. This means that the total amount of spending cuts for this year clocks in at $85 billion.
So what gets cut? The sequester is split evenly between defense spending and domestic spending. The domestic half has two parts: Medicare and everything else. For Medicare, the sequester specifies a flat 2 percent cut in reimbursements. Doctors will continue to bill 
at their usual rate, but they'll only receive 98 cents on the dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, here's how the whole thing nets out (see Table 1-2):
at their usual rate, but they'll only receive 98 cents on the dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, here's how the whole thing nets out (see Table 1-2):- Defense: $42.7 billion
- Medicare: $9.9 billion
- Other domestic: $32.7 billion
Aside from Medicare, how are the other cuts divvied up? The sequester legislation requires the cuts to come evenly from every budget account. This means everything (with a few exceptions) gets cut the same amount. This is an especially stupid way to cut spending, since everyone agrees that some programs are more important than others, but that's the way it is. If you really want to torture yourself, you can read this Office of Management and Budget report, which contains 224 pages listing the sequester amounts from every single agency in the United States government. It's followed by another 158 mind-numbing pages of agency accounts that are exempt from the sequester.
But as stupid as this is, don't get too excited about it. It's only for FY2013, which lasts seven more months. After that, although the total amount stays in place ($109 billion, split evenly between defense and domestic spending), congressional appropriations committees have much more flexibility about how to juggle the cuts.
Aren't we still in a recession? What are these cuts going to do to the economy?Technically, we're no longer in a recession, but there's no question the economy remains weak. A big bunch of dumb spending cuts is about the last thing we need.
That said, the actual impact of the cuts is hazy. Among private forecasting firms,Macroeconomic Advisers figures the sequester will cut GDP by 0.7 percentage points, while IHS Global Insight puts it at 0.3 percent. Back before the sequester was delayed, CBO estimated 0.8 percentage points. Given a consensus growth forecast of about 2 percent for this year, this is a fairly substantial headwind. In terms of jobs, it will probably increase the unemployment rate by about half a percentage point. This is why Fed chairman Ben Bernanke basically told Congress on Tuesday that they were nuts to let the sequester proceed.
That's all sort of bloodless. How about some horror stories? You know, three-hour waits at airports because of TSA cutbacks, food poisoning epidemics thanks to USDA cutbacks, that sort of thing? The White House has been making a lot of hay over its 50-state breakdown of cutbacks. California, for example, will lose 1,200 teachers, 8,200 Head Start slots, 49,000 HIV tests, $5 million in meals for seniors, etc. You can see the forecasts for your state here. Aside from that, Wonkblog seems to be the go-to site for alarmist coverage of the sequester. Brad Plumer has the impact on R&D spending here. In an interview with Ezra Klein, former NIH director Elias Zerhouni says it will be a "disaster for research." Suzy Khimm interviews a former Homeland Security official here who says smuggling will increase. And MoJo's own Zaineb Mohammed lists six ways the sequester will hurt the environment here,including higher risk of damage from wildfires.
That's terrible! Does anyone have a plan to avoid the sequester? Sure. Sort of. President Obama has proposed a substitute that includes about $1.1 trillion in spending cuts and $700 billion in new revenue. It was dead on arrival because Republicans are flatly unwilling to consider any plan that includes higher taxes. Back in December, Republicans in the House passed a bill that would have kept all the domestic cuts and replaced the defense cuts with yet more domestic cuts, mostly to anti-poverty programs. It was DOA too, for obvious reasons. House and Senate Democrats have plans as well.
But the truth is that there's probably no deal to be made. Republicans won't accept tax hikes, Democrats won't accept any bill that's exclusively spending cuts, and neither party is willing to just kill the sequester outright, which is the most sensible option. For now, all that's really happening is that both sides are barnstorming the country blaming the other guys. Obama seems to be winning that battle at the moment.
07 August 2011
Money Still Owed In Federal Bailout: $1.5 Trillion Still Owed to Treasury, Federal Reserve 3AUG11
WELL if this doesn't piss you off I don't know what will. While we all stewed about the looming financial crisis and a double dip recession and the negotiations over raising the federal debt ceiling this report shows there's $1.5 TRILLION owed to the government, to us, the taxpayers by recipients of federal bailout funds!!!!! The President and Congress are cutting funding for vital social safety net programs and vital government funding for all levels of education, food safety, the EPA, health care, and more while no doubt many of these companies and institutions have lavished obscene bonuses and pay increases on their top executives! This from BANKSTER (banker + gangster), be sure to click the links in the story for more in depth reports...
Submitted by Mary Bottari
Submitted by Mary Bottari
A new study released today by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) shows that, despite rosy statements about the bailout's impending successful conclusion from federal government officials, $1.5 trillion of the $4.8 trillion in federal bailout funds are still outstanding.
The analysis, presented in charts and an online table and program profiles, is based entirely on government records. This comprehensive assessment of the bailout goes beyond the relatively small Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program to look at the rest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve’s multi-trillion dollar response to the financial crisis. It shows that while the TARP bailout of Wall Street (not including the bailout of the auto industry) amounted to $330 billion, the government also quietly spent $4.4 trillion more in efforts to stave off the collapse of the financial and mortgage lending sectors. The majority of these funds ($3.9 trillion) came from the Federal Reserve, which undertook the actions citing an obscure section of its charter.
“In order to understand the big picture on the bailout, you have to look beyond TARP and examine the trillions the Federal Reserve has disbursed to keep the big banks above water. $4.8 trillion went out the door to aid financial companies and repair the damage they caused to financial markets, and $1.5 trillion of that is still outstanding,” said Mary Bottari, director of CMD’s Real Economy Project.
TOTAL WALL STREET BAILOUT COST TABLE: You can click here to see our a full list of each bailout program, the amount of money disbursed and the amount of money outstanding in each program.
Most of the bailout funds were comprised of aid to banks – the peak outstanding amount was $2.2 trillion in January 2009 – which took place at the height of the financial crisis in the form of loans with below-market interest rates and for questionable collateral to banks directly from the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
This massive effort is in stark contrast to the mere $2 billion the Treasury has spent to directly help homeowners stay in their homes via the widely criticized Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) program. With housing prices continuing to falter and the United States approaching 9.2 million foreclosure filings since the beginning of 2008, HAMP can be described as nothing less than an abject failure.
“The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent $1.6 trillion in a bank-shot to save the mortgage lending market by using the same financial companies that got us into this mess,” said Conor Kenny, lead author of the study. “That’s more than 800 times what they’ve spent directly to keep homeowners in their houses, and the banks have made money off the whole thing.”
CMD’s analysis also shows how the $4.8 trillion bailout of the financial sector dwarfs the $600 billion that the Federal Reserve spent on the much-hyped “Quantitative Easing 2” of 2010-2011 that was intended to help the broader economy – not just the financial sector – by lowering interest rates across the board and preventing deflation.
The analysis, presented in charts and an online table and program profiles, is based entirely on government records. This comprehensive assessment of the bailout goes beyond the relatively small Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program to look at the rest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve’s multi-trillion dollar response to the financial crisis. It shows that while the TARP bailout of Wall Street (not including the bailout of the auto industry) amounted to $330 billion, the government also quietly spent $4.4 trillion more in efforts to stave off the collapse of the financial and mortgage lending sectors. The majority of these funds ($3.9 trillion) came from the Federal Reserve, which undertook the actions citing an obscure section of its charter.
“In order to understand the big picture on the bailout, you have to look beyond TARP and examine the trillions the Federal Reserve has disbursed to keep the big banks above water. $4.8 trillion went out the door to aid financial companies and repair the damage they caused to financial markets, and $1.5 trillion of that is still outstanding,” said Mary Bottari, director of CMD’s Real Economy Project.
TOTAL WALL STREET BAILOUT COST TABLE: You can click here to see our a full list of each bailout program, the amount of money disbursed and the amount of money outstanding in each program.
Most of the bailout funds were comprised of aid to banks – the peak outstanding amount was $2.2 trillion in January 2009 – which took place at the height of the financial crisis in the form of loans with below-market interest rates and for questionable collateral to banks directly from the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchases
CMD’s study also shows how the government is continuing to prop up the same banks that caused the crisis in its attempt to help the housing market. The government’s housing program – which peaked at $1.6 trillion outstanding in July 2010 – is aimed at keeping mortgage lending flowing by subsidizing deals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make with the banks. Treasury and the Federal Reserve’s main approach has been to buy more than a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that the two government-sponsored enterprises can continue to purchase and bundle mortgages from the banks, which they sell to Fannie and Freddie at a profit. The banks also benefit from the hundreds of billions in direct loans the government has made to Fannie and Freddie, which the GSEs then turn around and make in insurance pay-outs to banks for mortgages that have gone bad.This massive effort is in stark contrast to the mere $2 billion the Treasury has spent to directly help homeowners stay in their homes via the widely criticized Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) program. With housing prices continuing to falter and the United States approaching 9.2 million foreclosure filings since the beginning of 2008, HAMP can be described as nothing less than an abject failure.
“The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent $1.6 trillion in a bank-shot to save the mortgage lending market by using the same financial companies that got us into this mess,” said Conor Kenny, lead author of the study. “That’s more than 800 times what they’ve spent directly to keep homeowners in their houses, and the banks have made money off the whole thing.”
CMD’s analysis also shows how the $4.8 trillion bailout of the financial sector dwarfs the $600 billion that the Federal Reserve spent on the much-hyped “Quantitative Easing 2” of 2010-2011 that was intended to help the broader economy – not just the financial sector – by lowering interest rates across the board and preventing deflation.
06 August 2011
China Blasts U.S. Over Credit Rating Downgrade, Debt 'Addiction' 6AUG11
PEOPLE don't like this, but there is some truth to what the government of the prc says concerning our fiscal policies (though they should have directed their criticisms at corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich) and the government circus in D.C. They are typically hypocritical though because they refuse to float their currency, refuse to allow true economic freedom, impose restrictive tariffs on imports, refuse to enforce their own laws on labor rights and so keep production cost artificially low, have a huge income inequality problem that will cause more social unrest, and underfund their own social safety net programs (pensions, healthcare, etc) while spending massive amounts on their own military. The prc is a disaster just waiting to happen because of their own dysfunctional government policies. So they can express their opinions on the situation in the U.S., but before demanding anything from the U.S. they should consider their own precarious situation first. From HuffPost.....
BEIJING -- China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, demanded Saturday that America tighten its belt and confront its "addiction to debts" in the wake of Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating.
China currently owns $1.2 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt, the largest stake of any central bank. The commentary carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency was Beijing's first official response to the S&P decision.
"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," Xinhua said.
It said the rating cut would be followed by more "devastating credit rating cuts" and global financial turbulence if the U.S. fails to learn to "live within its means."
"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," it said.
Xinhua said the U.S. must slash its "gigantic military expenditure and bloated social welfare costs" and accept international supervision over U.S. dollar issues.
Last month, China's top general, Chen Bingde, also linked America's financial woes to its military budget and asked whether paring back on defense spending wouldn't be the best thing for U.S. taxpayers.
Such comments reflect Beijing's desire that Washington reduce its military presence in Asia. The U.S., rattled by China's military buildup, also routinely chides Beijing for its fast-growing defense spending.
Xinhua also suggested a new global reserve currency might be necessary to replace the dollar, a position China has frequently advocated.
"Mounting debts and ridiculous political wrestling in Washington have damaged America's image abroad," Xinhua said. "To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
Jitters over the U.S. handling of its debt problems were also being felt elsewhere in Asia, said Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore's former ambassador to the United Nations.
The dean of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School for Public Policy said the last-minute agreement by the U.S. Congress to lift the debt limit and avoid default has policymakers in Asia questioning the stability of U.S. global leadership.
"It's definitely undermined U.S. credibility," Mahbubani said late Friday. "Everyone is wondering if you have such a dysfunctional political process, how can you provide global leadership. It's very dangerous for the world."
___
Associated Press writer Alex Kennedy in Singapore contributed to this report.
BEIJING -- China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, demanded Saturday that America tighten its belt and confront its "addiction to debts" in the wake of Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating.
China currently owns $1.2 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt, the largest stake of any central bank. The commentary carried by the state-run Xinhua News Agency was Beijing's first official response to the S&P decision.
"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," Xinhua said.
It said the rating cut would be followed by more "devastating credit rating cuts" and global financial turbulence if the U.S. fails to learn to "live within its means."
"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," it said.
Xinhua said the U.S. must slash its "gigantic military expenditure and bloated social welfare costs" and accept international supervision over U.S. dollar issues.
Last month, China's top general, Chen Bingde, also linked America's financial woes to its military budget and asked whether paring back on defense spending wouldn't be the best thing for U.S. taxpayers.
Such comments reflect Beijing's desire that Washington reduce its military presence in Asia. The U.S., rattled by China's military buildup, also routinely chides Beijing for its fast-growing defense spending.
Xinhua also suggested a new global reserve currency might be necessary to replace the dollar, a position China has frequently advocated.
"Mounting debts and ridiculous political wrestling in Washington have damaged America's image abroad," Xinhua said. "To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
Jitters over the U.S. handling of its debt problems were also being felt elsewhere in Asia, said Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore's former ambassador to the United Nations.
The dean of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School for Public Policy said the last-minute agreement by the U.S. Congress to lift the debt limit and avoid default has policymakers in Asia questioning the stability of U.S. global leadership.
"It's definitely undermined U.S. credibility," Mahbubani said late Friday. "Everyone is wondering if you have such a dysfunctional political process, how can you provide global leadership. It's very dangerous for the world."
___
Associated Press writer Alex Kennedy in Singapore contributed to this report.
S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time & S&P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating From AAA 5 & 6AUG11
I doubt this will motivate Congress to put aside politics and get to the business of governing. The repiglicans and tea-baggers are to blame for the failed budget negotiations....I know an agreement was reached but they insisted in protecting the greed of the wealthy and corporate America and the democrats and Pres Obama lacked the moral courage to stand up to them and demand revenue increases be part of any agreement. The government has taken us one step closer to being a plutocracy and a Third World nation. From the WashPost & NPR....
Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.
“It’s always possible the rating will come back, but we don’t think it’s coming back anytime soon,” said David Beers, head of S&P’s government debt rating unit.
The decision came after a day of furious back-and-forth debate between the Obama administration and S&P. Treasury Department officials fought back hard, arguing that the firm’s political analysis was flawed and that it had made a numerical error in a draft of its downgrade report that overstated the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion. Officials had reviewed the draft earlier in the day.
“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokesman said Friday night.
The downgrade to AA+ will push the global financial markets into uncharted territory after a volatile week fueled by concerns over a worsening debt crisis in Europe and a faltering economy in the United States.
The AAA rating has made the U.S. Treasury bond one of the world’s safest investments — and has helped the nation borrow at extraordinarily cheap rates to finance its government operations, including two wars and an expensive social safety net for retirees.
Treasury bonds have also been a stalwart of stability amid the economic upheaval of the past few years. The nation has had a AAA rating for 70 years.
Analysts say that, over time, the downgrade could push up borrowing costs for the U.S. government, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. It could also drive up interest rates for consumers and companies seeking mortgages, credit cards and business loans.
A downgrade could also have a cascading series of effects on states and localities, including nearly all of those in the Washington metro area. These governments could lose their AAA credit ratings as well, potentially raising the cost of borrowing for schools, roads and parks.
But the exact effects of the downgrade won’t be known until at least Sunday night, when Asian markets open, and perhaps not fully grasped for months. Analysts say the initial effect on the markets could be modest because they have been anticipating an S&P downgrade for weeks.
Federal officials are also examining the impact of a downgrade in large but esoteric financial markets where U.S. government bonds serve an extremely important function. They were generally confident that markets would hold up but were closely monitoring the situation. Regulators said that the downgrade would not affect how banking rules treat Treasury bonds — as risk-free assets.
The ratings action immediately fueled partisan wrangling Friday night. Allies to President Obama said it underscored his call for a “grand bargain” that would trim $4 trillion from the federal budget involving a mix of tax revenue and spending cuts.
Republicans criticized Obama’s handling of the economy.
“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said.
S&P has angered government officials with aggressive warnings during the past few months of a potential downgrade. S&P corrected its draft report Friday after Treasury raised concerns about the math.
Over the past few months, the multiple warnings from S&P have not worried government bond markets. What’s more, the two other major credit rating companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, have said they would preserve the nation’s AAA rating for now.
S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that U.S. political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.
The debt deal swung earlier this week proposed spending cuts in two phases. Democrats and Republicans agreed to the first round, worth nearly $1 trillion. But a congressional committee must decide on the remaining $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion — and S&P questioned whether that would ever happen.
S&P added that it expects that the upper income Bush-era tax cuts will continue, despite vows from Obama to end the breaks next year.
“The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” the firm said.
S&P’s downgrade served as an indictment of the gridlock that sent the nation to the edge of defaulting on its debt obligations. It is also striking in part because it reflects the tremendous power of a small group of financial analysts employed by a New York company — part of McGraw-Hill. Credit-rating companies’ reputations were sullied during the financial crisis.
In Europe, political leaders have taken aim at credit rating companies when they cut the ratings of governments struggling with heavy debt burdens.
S&P said the nation could suffer additional downgrades later on if the nation’s debt burden grows worse. “A new political consensus might [or might not] emerge after the 2012 election, but we believe that by then the government debt burden will likely be higher,” the firm said.
The company said the United States’s financial position was diverging from that of other AAA countries, including Canada, France, Germany and Britain.
Countries with a AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Among those countries with a AA rating, one notch lower, are Bermuda, Spain and Qatar.
Staff writers Neil Irwin and Cezary Podkul contributed to this report.
The United States has lost its coveted top AAA credit rating.
Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the nation's rating for the first time since the U.S. won the top ranking in 1917. The move came after Congress haggled over budget cuts and the U.S. government borrowing limit — and failed to cut enough government spending to satisfy S&P. The issue has contributed to convulsions in financial markets.
The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was expected. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. S&P said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation. Moody's said Friday it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation's debt, but that it might still lower it.
One of the biggest questions after the downgrade was what impact it would have on already nervous investors. Many financial analysts said investors were expecting a downgrade. But some selling was expected when stock trading resumed Monday morning. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 699 points this week, the biggest weekly point drop since October 2008.
"I think we will have a knee-jerk reaction on Monday," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank.
One fear in the market has been that a downgrade would scare buyers away from U.S. debt. If that were to happen, the interest raid paid on U.S. bonds, notes and bills would have to rise to attract buyers. However, even without its AAA rating, U.S. debt is seen as one of the safest investments in the world. And investors clearly weren't being scared away this week. While stocks were plunging, investors were buying Treasuries. The yield on the 10-year note, which moves opposite its price, fell to a low of 2.39 percent on Thursday.
The government fought the downgrade. Administration sources familiar with the discussions contended that the S&P analysis was fundamentally flawed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. S&P had sent the administration a draft document in the early afternoon Friday and the administration, after examining the numbers, challenged the analysis.
In a statement, Treasury said, "A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself."
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees smaller reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.
In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view "of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties" over a credible deficit reduction plan.
S&P said it was now "pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon."
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Standard & Poor’s announced Friday night that it has downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time, dealing a symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system.Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.
“It’s always possible the rating will come back, but we don’t think it’s coming back anytime soon,” said David Beers, head of S&P’s government debt rating unit.
The decision came after a day of furious back-and-forth debate between the Obama administration and S&P. Treasury Department officials fought back hard, arguing that the firm’s political analysis was flawed and that it had made a numerical error in a draft of its downgrade report that overstated the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion. Officials had reviewed the draft earlier in the day.
“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokesman said Friday night.
The downgrade to AA+ will push the global financial markets into uncharted territory after a volatile week fueled by concerns over a worsening debt crisis in Europe and a faltering economy in the United States.
The AAA rating has made the U.S. Treasury bond one of the world’s safest investments — and has helped the nation borrow at extraordinarily cheap rates to finance its government operations, including two wars and an expensive social safety net for retirees.
Treasury bonds have also been a stalwart of stability amid the economic upheaval of the past few years. The nation has had a AAA rating for 70 years.
Analysts say that, over time, the downgrade could push up borrowing costs for the U.S. government, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. It could also drive up interest rates for consumers and companies seeking mortgages, credit cards and business loans.
A downgrade could also have a cascading series of effects on states and localities, including nearly all of those in the Washington metro area. These governments could lose their AAA credit ratings as well, potentially raising the cost of borrowing for schools, roads and parks.
But the exact effects of the downgrade won’t be known until at least Sunday night, when Asian markets open, and perhaps not fully grasped for months. Analysts say the initial effect on the markets could be modest because they have been anticipating an S&P downgrade for weeks.
Federal officials are also examining the impact of a downgrade in large but esoteric financial markets where U.S. government bonds serve an extremely important function. They were generally confident that markets would hold up but were closely monitoring the situation. Regulators said that the downgrade would not affect how banking rules treat Treasury bonds — as risk-free assets.
The ratings action immediately fueled partisan wrangling Friday night. Allies to President Obama said it underscored his call for a “grand bargain” that would trim $4 trillion from the federal budget involving a mix of tax revenue and spending cuts.
Republicans criticized Obama’s handling of the economy.
“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said.
S&P has angered government officials with aggressive warnings during the past few months of a potential downgrade. S&P corrected its draft report Friday after Treasury raised concerns about the math.
Over the past few months, the multiple warnings from S&P have not worried government bond markets. What’s more, the two other major credit rating companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, have said they would preserve the nation’s AAA rating for now.
S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that U.S. political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.
The debt deal swung earlier this week proposed spending cuts in two phases. Democrats and Republicans agreed to the first round, worth nearly $1 trillion. But a congressional committee must decide on the remaining $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion — and S&P questioned whether that would ever happen.
S&P added that it expects that the upper income Bush-era tax cuts will continue, despite vows from Obama to end the breaks next year.
“The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” the firm said.
S&P’s downgrade served as an indictment of the gridlock that sent the nation to the edge of defaulting on its debt obligations. It is also striking in part because it reflects the tremendous power of a small group of financial analysts employed by a New York company — part of McGraw-Hill. Credit-rating companies’ reputations were sullied during the financial crisis.
In Europe, political leaders have taken aim at credit rating companies when they cut the ratings of governments struggling with heavy debt burdens.
S&P said the nation could suffer additional downgrades later on if the nation’s debt burden grows worse. “A new political consensus might [or might not] emerge after the 2012 election, but we believe that by then the government debt burden will likely be higher,” the firm said.
The company said the United States’s financial position was diverging from that of other AAA countries, including Canada, France, Germany and Britain.
Countries with a AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Among those countries with a AA rating, one notch lower, are Bermuda, Spain and Qatar.
Staff writers Neil Irwin and Cezary Podkul contributed to this report.
S&P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating From AAA
Complete Coverage
S&P Lowers U.S. Long-Term Credit Rating Aug. 5, 2011
The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was expected. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. S&P said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation. Moody's said Friday it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation's debt, but that it might still lower it.
One of the biggest questions after the downgrade was what impact it would have on already nervous investors. Many financial analysts said investors were expecting a downgrade. But some selling was expected when stock trading resumed Monday morning. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 699 points this week, the biggest weekly point drop since October 2008.
"I think we will have a knee-jerk reaction on Monday," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank.
One fear in the market has been that a downgrade would scare buyers away from U.S. debt. If that were to happen, the interest raid paid on U.S. bonds, notes and bills would have to rise to attract buyers. However, even without its AAA rating, U.S. debt is seen as one of the safest investments in the world. And investors clearly weren't being scared away this week. While stocks were plunging, investors were buying Treasuries. The yield on the 10-year note, which moves opposite its price, fell to a low of 2.39 percent on Thursday.
The government fought the downgrade. Administration sources familiar with the discussions contended that the S&P analysis was fundamentally flawed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. S&P had sent the administration a draft document in the early afternoon Friday and the administration, after examining the numbers, challenged the analysis.
In a statement, Treasury said, "A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself."
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees smaller reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.
In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view "of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties" over a credible deficit reduction plan.
S&P said it was now "pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon."
Economy
A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion
The official debt doesn't include trillions more in promised spending.Economy
Will The Budget 'Supercommittee' Accomplish Anything?
Twelve lawmakers will be the focus of this year's next political showdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)