U.S. President Barack Obama (L) shakes hands with Speaker of the House John Boehner before delivering remarks during a dinner with bipartisan Congressional leaders in the East Room of the White House May 2, 2011 in Washington, DC. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted a group of bipartisan committee chairmen and ranking members and their spouses for the dinner. UPI/Chip Somodevilla/Pool | License Photo
COLLEGE PARK, Md., July 1 (UPI) -- The United States doesn't have to default on its debt and the Social Security and Medicare checks can go out even if Republicans and U.S. President Barack Obama cannot strike a deal to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.
Even though the government cannot borrow additional money, it still has tax revenues equal to about 55 percent of expenses -- $2.2 trillion against expenses equal to about $3.8 trillion for a $1.6 trillion deficit. With those tax revenues, Washington can fund interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicaid and crucial national defense responsibilities. With the interest on the debt honored, the government can sell new bonds to replace bonds that come due without piercing the statutory debt limit.
Interest, benefits to seniors and defense would absorb virtually all tax revenues. It would appear the other functions of government would have to shut down but the Obama administration has other options.
Often overlooked, the U.S. Treasury can print money to pay its bills. Before you gasp that Washington would be flooding the world with greenbacks, it doesn't have to be.
The Federal Reserve holds on its balance sheet about $2.6 trillion in securities, mostly Treasury bonds, which it could sell to absorb the money the Treasury prints to pay its bills. At $1.6 trillion a year, that could keep the government running past the next election.
Also, since 2007, government spending has jumped $1.1 trillion but only $200 billion was needed to cover inflation -- the $900 billion additional was new programs and benefits and higher pay. That has increased federal spending's share of gross domestic product from 19.6 percent to more than 25 percent.
Temporarily, slicing that additional government spending by $450 billion, by executive order, would likely stand up in court as an emergency measure. Especially if Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, sat down and did a deal, alone or with help from their partisan friends if necessary.
It would be good politics for both sides -- either the president is right and Americans would see how painful it is to cut government that much or Republican would be able to point that we are better off.
The Treasury would have to print about $1.2 trillion a year in new money and the Fed would sell an equal amount of securities from its balance sheet. That maneuver would take us until a new Congress is seated and a re-elected Obama or his successor has a clear mandate.
Before you say this is kicking the can again, consider that in 2012 both the president and his opponent would have to table specific alternatives for slashing the deficit and restoring normal operations and the winner would emerge with a mandate for his plan.
Right now, neither side is tabling credible plans. The president's taxes on the rich and other schemes would only slash at best $150 billion annually from the $1.6 trillion deficit and the Republicans about a similar amount in spending cuts they have managed to propose.
Neither side is talking about harnessing the rapidly rising prices the government pays for healthcare -- both sides just talk about trimming benefits a bit or the pain of it.
The United States pays double, or more, than European governments for drugs and suffers from large disadvantages in insurance administration, hospital efficiency and tort costs. Regulating those prices is tar baby no one in Congress or the White House wants to put his arms around -- but we aren't getting out of this mess without doing so.
Ditto for retirement ages for Social Security and the vast array of federal pensions and state pensions the federal government indirectly helps finance.
The absence of frank discussion of financing options beyond Aug. 2 is the fault of two men. Though U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner serves at the pleasure of the president and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke must answer frequently to Congress, both men have a responsibility to articulate the genuine budget and economic challenges before the nation and both men can easily find other satisfying and better paying jobs in a pinch.
In similar crises, past Cabinet members have stepped up -- consider the conduct of senior Department of Justice officials in the last days of the Nixon administration and Alan Greenspan wasn't afraid to talk frankly about federal policies.
Geithner needs to draft plans to keep the government going and be quietly frank with political leaders about those plans. And Bernanke would then concur with how the Fed can respond.
Sadly Geithner and Bernanke are shirking responsibilities. Geithner's substantive shortcomings are widely speculated; however, Bernanke is a bright man and has no alibis to offer.
(Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)