• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama "can't guarantee" SS checks will go out.. why can't he?

Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
842
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the bonds in the SS trust fund already counted in the debt? "Intragovernmental holdings"? I'm well aware of the intermediate and long-term issues with the social security system but it would appear that we can run the SS system for several years without a debt limit hike.

So have I been misinformed, or is Obama misinformed/lying?
 
Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

What's the difference between the Public Debt Outstanding and the Public Debt Subject to Limit?

The Public Debt Outstanding represents the face amount or principal amount of marketable and non-marketable securities currently outstanding. The Public Debt Subject to Limit is the maximum amount of money the Government is allowed to borrow without receiving additional authority from Congress. Furthermore, the Public Debt Subject to Limit is the Public Debt Outstanding adjusted for Unamortized Discount on Treasury Bills and Zero Coupon Treasury Bonds, Miscellaneous debt (very old debt), Debt held by the Federal Financing Bank and Guaranteed Debt.

Here is the most recent Daily Treasury Statement

The relevant figures:
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit 14,293,975
Statutory Debt Limit 14,294,000
Those are in millions, so that means we can only borrow another $25 million before we hit the limit.

ETA: I believe that intragovernmental holdings count as Public Debt Subject to Limit, but if someone can show otherwise, please correct me.

ETA2: Actually, it says right there in the Treasury Statement:
Debt Held by the Public 9,741,328
Intragovernmental Holdings 4,601,638
Total Public Debt Outstanding 14,342,966
Less: Debt Not Subject to Limit: (snip; a bunch of subcategories here)
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit 14,293,975
Statutory Debt Limit 14,294,000

So Intragovernmental Holdings do count as debt subject to the limit.
 
Last edited:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the bonds in the SS trust fund already counted in the debt? "Intragovernmental holdings"? I'm well aware of the intermediate and long-term issues with the social security system but it would appear that we can run the SS system for several years without a debt limit hike.

So have I been misinformed, or is Obama misinformed/lying?

You've been mislead. *If* Obama respects the debt ceiling law, he has no options. However, I would tell him to just inform the treasury that he needs a few thousand $100,000 notes printed, and just keep paying on time.
 
However, I would tell him to just inform the treasury that he needs a few thousand $100,000 notes printed, and just keep paying on time.

$100,000 notes? What are you talking about?

First of all, unless I'm mistaken, no such denomination exists.
Second of all, I don't think that the president can just order money to be printed.
 
PolitiFact gave the statement a "half true" rating:

Where does this leave us? The critics likely have a point when they say Obama is playing up the risk to the most sympathetic potential victims -- Social Security recipients, 23 percent of whom live in households that depend on the retirement system for 90 percent or more of their income. While it's not a certainty that the Obama administration could prioritize cutting checks to seniors, there's a reasonable shot that the administration could do it.

On the other hand, doing so would likely cause a lot of collateral damage to other American creditors, federal workers, students, Pentagon vendors and countless others -- and could also hamper the broader economy at a particularly sensitive time. The president is probably justified in saying that the possibility of an un-raised debt ceiling jeopardizes Social Security checks -- after all, it hasn't happened before, so no one knows for sure. But we also think the president probably has tools at his disposal to avoid the worst-case scenario for seniors that he expresses concern about. Acknowledging that there are a lot of uncertainties, we rate his statement Half True.

The Washington Post Fact Checker gave it a "Verdict Pending":

Late Tuesday night, however, the Treasury Department cast serious doubt on whether it was feasible to keep paying Social Security benefits if the debt limit had been breached.

“This type of financial engineering is untested, may not work, and is of questionable legality,” a Treasury official told us. “It is not feasible for Treasury to borrow from the public, each day, the precise amount of Social Security payments due without breaching the debt limit. In addition, it is questionable whether it is legal to redeem Social Security trust fund assets in advance of payments. Moreover, this presumes that Treasury will have full access to the financial markets if the debt limit is not raised.”

-Bri
 
$100,000 notes? What are you talking about?

First of all, unless I'm mistaken, no such denomination exists.
Second of all, I don't think that the president can just order money to be printed.

You can create a denomination of any size you like.

And yes, the President can just order money printed; He has congressional approval already because they voted both a budget and an appropriation. Lacking the ability to create debt or levy more tax, the President, I argue, has a constitutional duty to print money to pay the debts.
 

That's reaching pretty far though, the money needed to physically mail the checks is likely small and important enough not to be anywhere near the top of the chopping block.

BenBurch said:
You've been mislead. *If* Obama respects the debt ceiling law, he has no options. However, I would tell him to just inform the treasury that he needs a few thousand $100,000 notes printed, and just keep paying on time.

So we don't have several years worth of SS checks in the trust fund? I would think "keep paying because the money is right there with which to keep paying" would count as an "option" that he would have.


(edit)Thanks for the politifact link, apparently this isn't the first time he's made this threat, it got a "barely true" rating last time:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-if-theres-government-shutdown-so/
 
Last edited:
That's reaching pretty far though, the money needed to physically mail the checks is likely small and important enough not to be anywhere near the top of the chopping block.

*fingers crossed*

The point is, no one knows for sure what will happen. If you hamstring the government's ability to pay its bills, it can have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. One of those consequences is a disruption in government services.

So it seems a little disingenuous to suggest Obama is lying when he says Social Security payments may be delayed, and then when the reality of that occurrence is pointed out to you, hand-wave it away as something that probably won't happen.
 
Here's more theories about how they could monetize the Social Security Trust Fund so as to keep payments flowing.

Of course this means turning intragovernmental debt into debt held by the public, IOW, it would deplete the Social Security Trust Fund.

But others, including Jason J. Fichtner, a former deputy Social Security administrator during the Bush administration now at George Mason University, believes this explanation is unsatisfactory. He notes that Social Security holds $2.6 trillion in special-issue Treasury securities. Those bonds are part of the $14.3 trillion debt amassed by the U.S. government, and benefits are paid out of those securities.

So, the theory goes, if Treasury redeemed the needed Social Security bonds, and issued new marketable Treasury bonds to make good on the Social Security bonds, it would be a one for one swap and the debt ceiling would not be increased.

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.

“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.”
 
Last edited:
*fingers crossed*

The point is, no one knows for sure what will happen. If you hamstring the government's ability to pay its bills, it can have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. One of those consequences is a disruption in government services.

So it seems a little disingenuous to suggest Obama is lying when he says Social Security payments may be delayed, and then when the reality of that occurrence is pointed out to you, hand-wave it away as something that probably won't happen.

It definitely won't happen unless Obama or the Treasury want it to happen. The politifact link in my last post is informative on this matter specifically, the Treasury is free to prioritize payments. If the SS administration got shut down, it would be the result of a willful decision by the executive branch.

It would have been more accurate if he'd said "I can't guarantee that I won't decide to stop sending out SS checks", but I guess that wouldn't be very politically savvy..
 
Last edited:
It definitely won't happen unless Obama or the Treasury want it to happen. The politifact link in my last post is informative on this matter specifically, the Treasury is free to prioritize payments. If the SS administration got shut down, it would be the result of a willful decision by the executive branch.

It would have been more accurate if he'd said "I can't guarantee that I won't decide to stop sending out SS checks", but I guess that wouldn't be very politically savvy..

Not exactly. The other PolitiFact article is more to the point:

While it's not a certainty that the Obama administration could prioritize cutting checks to seniors, there's a reasonable shot that the administration could do it.

On the other hand, doing so would likely cause a lot of collateral damage to other American creditors, federal workers, students, Pentagon vendors and countless others -- and could also hamper the broader economy at a particularly sensitive time. The president is probably justified in saying that the possibility of an un-raised debt ceiling jeopardizes Social Security checks...

So, no, it's not certain that Obama could prioritize, and even if he could, it's not clear that the ramifications of doing so would make it a viable choice.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
So, no, it's not certain that Obama could prioritize, and even if he could, it's not clear that the ramifications of doing so would make it a viable choice.

From the more recent article:

The GAO found "no requirement" that Treasury pay its bills in a first-in, first-out fashion. "Treasury is free to liquidate obligations in any order it finds will best serve the interests of the United States," the GAO concluded.

Most of those ramifications on other parties are pretty much independent of the SS question. Again we're only talking about the amount of money needed to physically mail the checks, not to actually cash them (that's covered by the trust fund).
 
You can create a denomination of any size you like.

And yes, the President can just order money printed; He has congressional approval already because they voted both a budget and an appropriation. Lacking the ability to create debt or levy more tax, the President, I argue, has a constitutional duty to print money to pay the debts.

So this is just a theory of your's. Can you imagine the field day republicans would have if Obama just ordered the Treasury to start printing new money?

He's Going to Cause Hyperinflation!! He's Shredding The Constitution!! We're ALL GOING TO DIE!!!11

picture.php
 
From the more recent article:



Most of those ramifications on other parties are pretty much independent of the SS question. Again we're only talking about the amount of money needed to physically mail the checks, not to actually cash them (that's covered by the trust fund).

At the end of the day, somebody who is rightfully owed money by the government will not be paid.

The troops for example.
 
I also bet in that situation, they'd find, say, lowering the debt to get under the ceiling a higher priority than SS.

Well the only way they can lower the debt is to not accumulate any more of it and let the existing debt mature. Default is impossible due to the 14th amendment.

Puppycow said:
At the end of the day, somebody who is rightfully owed money by the government will not be paid.

The troops for example.

Rightfully owed or not, yes promises would certainly have to be broken. Troop pay specifically is not a huge number, a couple billion or so, but there are much larger segments of defense spending I'd personally give some real thought to slashing.
 
It definitely won't happen unless Obama or the Treasury want it to happen. The politifact link in my last post is informative on this matter specifically, the Treasury is free to prioritize payments. If the SS administration got shut down, it would be the result of a willful decision by the executive branch.

It would have been more accurate if he'd said "I can't guarantee that I won't decide to stop sending out SS checks", but I guess that wouldn't be very politically savvy..


Yeah, that's not really an accurate representation of what Politifact has to say on this matter. Here's how they summed up their rating of Obama's statement:
So at the very least, we believe there’s considerably more uncertainty on this issue than Obama stated in the news conference. While Obama had said that if there’s a government shutdown, "people don’t get their Social Security checks," the reality is that the law provides significant leeway for employing federal workers to carry out Social Security functions during a shutdown, which allowed most checks to go out in 1995.

On the other hand, making that approach work depends on the president utilizing his authority, and on Congress not blocking him from carrying it out. It’s also possible, as Carney suggests, that depending on the number of Social Security employees assigned to work, certain customer services may become unavailable during a shutdown, such as checks not going out to new beneficiaries or those with address changes.

Ultimately, the law and history suggest that it’s likely that checks will go out, though it’s not a certainty. On balance, we rate Obama’s statement Barely True.
There are other contingencies indicated besides just Obama's "willful decision".
 
Yeah, that's not really an accurate representation of what Politifact has to say on this matter. Here's how they summed up their rating of Obama's statement:

There are other contingencies indicated besides just Obama's "willful decision".

The congress being able to block the executive was a factor specific to the "government shutdown" situation. In this case the budget is already approved by congress, thus it's up to the discretion of Treasury what specifically gets paid when.

(Edit)I admit the Treasury may not want that authority, as there are people who will try and blame them for every bad thing that happens, but the authority is in fact theirs according to the GAO.

(Edit 2)And, having said authority, keeping the SS checks flowing by only paying overhead and tapping the trust fund would be a no-brainer. Practically the only easy decision they would have to make, the point of a trust fund is to keep SS going independent of peripheral emergencies.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom