Thursday, October 17, 2013
Baby blues strikes dads as often as moms
Baby blues strikes dads as often as mums
A new study at the Karolinska Institute in Solna in collaboration with the Stockholm County Council showed that men are just as likely as women to experience depressive symptoms after becoming parents.
"We didn't think we'd find so many," Magdalena Carlberg, who lead the study, told The Local. "We expected fewer fathers than mothers to express depressive symptoms, considering the general prevalence of depression in men and women."
The study included more than 3,600 new dads in Stockholm. Some 15 percent of them reported they experienced symptoms of depression after child birth. The number matches post-partum depression rates of mothers, that is estimated at 10 to 15 percent in Stockholm County.
If the statistics for the rest of Sweden match those of Stockholm, over 15,000 new fathers in Sweden may face depression to various degrees after they become a parent, whether for the first time or not.
The participants in the study filled out two questionnaires about how they had been feeling, answering the same questions given to new mums. The questionnaires use a point system to calculate a total score. At a certain number of points, the parent was considered to be showing possible symptoms of depression.
"International studies show that fathers underestimate and thus under-report their symptoms by about two points,” Carlberg told The Local. "So we set the limit for the fathers two points lower than on the scale for women. But even if we raise the limit, the numbers will still probably be quite similar to those of new mothers with symptoms, who have been estimated to 10-15 percent in Stockholm County."
It took Jonas Rasmussen, a father from southern Sweden, several years to seek help for his depression. Rasmussen was rarely happy, but thought that was just how it felt to be a dad.
"At one point I sat down at the kitchen table and said to myself that I love my wife, I love my son, but I hate being a parent," Rasmussen told Sveriges Radio (SR).
"Now I can really enjoy sitting down and building lego with him," Rasmussen said. "Or drawing or reading him a book. It's truly remarkable."
The term baby blues usually refers to post-partum depression in women, most likely caused by fluctuating hormone levels and is also common among mothers a couple of days after giving birth. Carlberg said, however, that a different kind of depression can set in any time during the first year after delivery - which is the depression stalking new fathers. For dads the symptoms appear to be delayed, with an increasing number of new fathers beginning to display signs of depression, reaching a peak when the child is about six months old.
"Both for mums and dads with depressive symptoms," Carlberg said, "this can lead to relationship problems with the child, the partner and within the family."
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
United States debt ceiling.
F
or the history of the United States debt ceiling, see History of United States debt ceiling.
Part of a series on Government
United States
budget and debt topics
Major dimensions[hide]
Economy · Expenditures
Federal budget · Financial position
Military budget · Public debt
Taxation · Unemployment
Programs[hide]
Medicare · Social programs
Social Security
Contemporary issues[hide]
Fiscal cliff · Budget sequestration in 2013
Bowles-Simpson Commission · Bush tax cuts
Debt-ceiling crisis (2011 · 2013) ·Deficit reduction
Health care reform · Political debates
Social Security debate · "Starve the beast"
Subprime mortgage crisis
Financial crisis of 2007–08
Government shutdowns of 1995–96
Government shutdown of 2013
Terminology[hide]
Cumulative deficit · Interest · Debt ·Balance of payments · Inflation
v
t
e
The United States debt ceiling or debt limit is a legislative mechanism to limit the amount of national debt that can be issued by theTreasury. The debt ceiling is an aggregate figure which applies to the gross debt, which includes debt in the hands of the public and in Intragovernment accounts. Because expenditures are authorized by separate legislation, the debt ceiling does not directly limit budget deficits. In effect, it can only restrain Treasury from paying for expenditures after the limit has been reached, but which have already been approved (in the budget) and appropriated.
When the debt ceiling is actually reached without an increase in the limit having been passed, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to temporarily finance the government's expenditures and obligations until a resolution can be reached. The Treasury has never reached the point of exhausting extraordinary measures. If this situation were to occur, it is unclear whether Treasury would be able to prioritize payments on debt to avoid a default on its debt obligations, but it would at least have to default on some of its non-debt obligations. A default could trigger a variety of economic problems including a financial crisis and a decline in output that would put the country into a recession.
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
2 Relationship to federal budget
3 Legislative history
3.1 1995 debt ceiling crisis
3.2 2011 debt ceiling crisis
3.3 2013 debt ceiling crisis
4 Reaching the debt limit
4.1 Extraordinary measures
4.2 Default on financial obligations
5 Controversy
6 References
7 Sources
8 Further reading
Background
The United States has had some sort of legislative limit on debt since 1917. From time to time, political disputes arise when the Treasury advises Congress that the debt ceiling is about to be reached and indicating that a default is imminent. When the debt ceiling is reached, and pending an increase in the limit, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to buy more time before the ceiling can be raised by Congress. The United States has never reached the point of default where Treasury is incapable of paying its debt obligations, except in the War of 1812 when the Burning of Washington happened and parts of Washington D.C. including the Treasury were burned.[1]
In 2011, the United States reached a point of near default. The delay in raising the debt ceiling resulted in the first downgrade in the United States credit rating, a sharp drop in the stock market, and an increase in borrowing costs. Congress raised the debt limit with the Budget Control Act of 2011, which created the fiscal cliff and set a new debt ceiling that was reached on December 31, 2012. Treasury has adopted extraordinary measures to avoid a default on its obligations. On February 4, 2013, President Barack Obama signed a suspension of the debt ceiling that ran until May 19, 2013. After May 19, the debt ceiling was raised to $16.699 trillion, the level of debt incurred during the suspension, and Treasury resumed extraordinary measures.[2] Treasury Secretary Jack Lew notified Congress that these measures would be exhausted by October 17, 2013.[3] On October 7, 2013 Treasury indicated that the debt ceiling and extraordinary measures will be exhausted and that a default will occur on October 17 when interest payments are due.[citation needed]
The United States and Denmark are the only constitutional countries to have legislative restrictions on the incurring of public debt. The Danish debt ceiling is, however, mainly a formality and follows the budgeting and expenditure process and provides ample latitude for unforeseen deficits. It has never created the periodic crises as has the American.[4]
Relationship to federal budget
The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the United States budget process, and raising the debt ceiling neither directly increases nor decreases the budget deficit, and vice versa. The Government Accountability Office explains, "the debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."[5]
The President formulates a federal budget every year, which Congress must pass, sometimes with amendments, in a concurrent resolution, which does not require the President's signature and is not binding. The budget details projected tax collections and expenditures and, therefore, specifies the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in thatfiscal year.
Legislative history
Further information: History of United States debt ceiling
Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[6] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[7]
Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget.[8] James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.[9]
In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by Congress in 1995.[10]
1995 debt ceiling crisis
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 1995
The debt-ceiling debate of 1995 led to a showdown on the federal budget, which did not pass, and resulted in the United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996.[11][12]
2011 debt ceiling crisis]
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011
In 2011, Republicans in Congress attempted to use the debt ceiling as leverage for deficit reduction. The delay in raising the debt ceiling led to the first ever downgrade in the federal government's credit rating. The credit downgrade and debt ceiling debacle contributed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 2,000 points in late July and August. Following the downgrade itself, the DJIA had one of its worst days in history and fell 635 points on August 8.[13] The GAO estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling raised borrowing costs for the government by $1.3 billion in 2011 and noted that the delay would also raise costs in later years. The Bipartisan Policy Center extended the GAO's estimates and found that the delay raised borrowing costs by $18.9 billion over ten years.[14]
2013 debt ceiling crisis
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2013)
Following the increase in the debt ceiling to $16.394 trillion in 2011,[15] the United States again reached the debt ceiling on December 31, 2012 and the Treasury began taking extraordinary measures. The fiscal cliff was resolved with the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), but no action was taken on the debt ceiling. Following the tax cuts from ATRA, the government needed to raise the debt ceiling by $700 billion to finance operations for the rest of the 2013 fiscal year.[16] Extraordinary measures were expected to be exhausted by February 15.[17] The Treasury has said it is not set up to prioritize payments, and it's not clear that it would be legal to do so. Given this situation, the Treasury would simply delay payments if funds could not be raised through extraordinary measures and the debt ceiling had not been raised. This would put a freeze on 7% of the nation's GDP, a contraction greater than the Great Recession. The economic damage would worsen as recipients of social security benefits, government contracts, and other government payments cut back on spending in response to having the freeze in their revenue.[18]
Under the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013, both houses of Congress voted to suspend the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013 until May 19, 2013. On May 19, the debt ceiling was raised to approximately $16.699 trillion to accommodate the borrowing done during the suspension period. The Treasury is now using extraordinary measures to avoid a default. Due to the impacts of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Sequester, and a $60 billion payment from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will reach the Treasury on June 28, 2013, extraordinary measures are currently predicted to last until October 17 by the Treasury,[19] but financial firms suggest funds may last a little longer. Jefferies Group says extraordinary measures may last until the end of October while Credit Suisse estimates mid-November.[20]
Reaching the debt limit
Extraordinary measures
The Treasury Department is authorized to issue debt needed to fund government operations (as authorized by each federal budget) up to the debt ceiling, with some small exceptions. When the debt ceiling is reached, Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period and utilize "extraordinary measures" to acquire funds to meet federal obligations but which do not require the issue of new debt.
These measures may include suspending investments in the "G-fund" of the individual retirement funds of federal employees, the Thrift Savings Plan. In 2011 these measures were extended to suspending investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (Postal Benefits Fund), and the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). In addition to suspending investments, certain CSRDF investments were also redeemed early.[21] In 1985, the Treasury had also exchanged Treasury securities for non-Treasury securities held by the Federal Financing Bank.[22]
However, these amounts are not sufficient to cover government operations.[23] Treasury first used these measures on December 16, 2009, to remain within the debt ceiling, and avoid a government shutdown,[24] and also used it during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. However, there are limits to how much can be raised by these measures.
Default on financial obligations
If the debt ceiling is not raised by the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will be unable to pay its financial obligations. The United States has never reached this point. If extraordinary measures are exhausted, the executive branch has the authority to determine which obligations are paid and which are not.[25]
Failure to pay obligations has been characterized as a default; however, some have argued that the executive branch can choose to prioritize interest payments on bonds, which would avoid an immediate, direct default on sovereign debt. During the debt ceiling crisis in 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner argued that prioritization of interest payments would not help since government expenditures would have needed to be cut by an unrealistic 40% if the debt ceiling is not raised. Also, a default on non-debt obligations would still undermine American creditworthiness according to at least one rating agency.[26] In 2011, the Treasury suggested that it could not prioritize certain types of expenditures because all expenditures are on equal footing under the law. In this view, when extraordinary measures are exhausted, no payments could be made at all and the United States would be in default on all of its obligations.[27] The CBO notes that prioritization would not avoid the technical definition found in Black's Law Dictionary where default is defined as “the failure to make a payment when due.”[28]
Controversy
A vote to increase the debt ceiling is usually seen as a formality[by whom?], needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by Congress and the President. Earlier reports to Congress from experts have repeatedly said that the debt limit is an ineffective means to restrain the growth of debt.[8] James Surowiecki argues that the debt ceiling originally served a useful purpose. When introduced, the President had stronger authority to borrow and spend as he pleased; however, after 1974, Congress began passing comprehensive budget resolutions that specify exactly how much money the government can spend.[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[29][30]
A January 2013 poll of a panel of highly regarded economists found that 84% agreed or strongly agreed that, since Congress already approves spending and taxation, "a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse fiscal outcomes." Only one member of the panel, Luigi Zingales, disagreed with the statement.[31]
References
Jump up^ [1]
Jump up^ Sahadi & May 17, 2013 2013.
Jump up^ [2]
Jump up^ DR Nyheder.
Jump up^ Government Accountability Office (February 22, 2011). "Debt Limit: Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market".
Jump up^ Austin 2008, p. 2.
Jump up^ Austin 2008, p. 2-3.
^ Jump up to:a b Kowalcky & LeLoup 1993, p. 14.
^ Jump up to:a b Surowiecki 2011.
Jump up^ Green 2011.
Jump up^ U.S. GAO, "Debt Ceiling: Analysis of Actions During the 1995-1996 Crisis", AIMD-96-130, 1996 August 30
Jump up^ New Republic, "How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama", Kara Brandeisky, 2 August 2011
Jump up^ Sweet 8 August 2011.
Jump up^ Bipartisan Policy Center, p. 1.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 1.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013.
Jump up^ Sahadi 2013.
Jump up^ Yglesias 2013.
Jump up^ [3]
Jump up^ [4]
Jump up^ GAO 2012, p. 10.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 3-4.
Jump up^ Timothy Geithner (April 4, 2011). "Geithner Letter to Congress". Treasury Department.
Jump up^ "U.S. National Debt Tops Debt Limit". CBS News. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ Austin & Levit 2012.
Jump up^ Lawder 2012.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 8.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 15.
Jump up^ Lowrey, Annie (May 16, 2011). "Debt ceiling crisis: The debt ceiling is a pointless, dangerous relic, and it should be abolished". Slate. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ Epstein, Jennifer (July 18, 2011). "Moody's: Abolish the debt limit". Politico. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ IGM Forum.
Sources
"Amerikanere kan lære af dansk gældsloft" (in Danish). DR Nyheder. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
"Analysis of 2011-2012 Actions Taken and Effect of Delayed Increase on Borrowing Costs". GAO. July 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Austin, D. Andrew (29 April 2008). "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases". Congressional Research Service.
Austin, D. Andrew; Levit, Mindy R. (27 December 2012). "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases". Congressional Research Service.
"Debt ceiling". IGM Forum. Chicago Booth. 15 January 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
"Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, November 2012". Congressional Budget Office. November 2012.
"Debt Limit Analysis". Bipartisan Policy Center. 27 November 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
"Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market". GAO-11-203. GAO. February 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Green, Joshua (9 May 2011). "How Dick Gephardt Fixed the Debt-Ceiling Problem". The Atlantic.
Kowalcky, Linda W.; LeLoup, Lance T. (1993). "Congress and the Politics of Statutory Debt Limitation". Public Administration Review 53 (1). JSTOR 977272.
Lawder, David (29 June 2011). "Prioritizing debt payments won't work: Geithner". Reuters.
Levit, Mandy R.; Brass, Clinton T.; Nicola, Timothy J.; Nuschler, Dawn. "Reaching the Debt Limit: Background and Potential Effects on Government Operations".
Masters, Jonathan. "U.S. Debt Ceiling: Costs and Consequences". Renewing America. Council on Foreign Relations.
Sahadi, Jeanne (7 January 2013). "Debt Ceiling: 'Chaotic' choices on 100 million payments". CNNMoney. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Surowiecki, James (1 August 2011). "Smash the Ceiling". The New Yorker.
Sweet, Ken (8 August 2011). "Dow plunges after S&P downgrade". CNNMoney.
Yglesias, Matthew (16 January 2013). "What if Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling?". Slate.
Further reading
Eisner, Robert (1993). "Federal Debt". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. OCLC 317650570,50016270 and 163149563
Categories:
Government finances in the United States
United States public debt
or the history of the United States debt ceiling, see History of United States debt ceiling.
Part of a series on Government
United States
budget and debt topics
Major dimensions[hide]
Economy · Expenditures
Federal budget · Financial position
Military budget · Public debt
Taxation · Unemployment
Programs[hide]
Medicare · Social programs
Social Security
Contemporary issues[hide]
Fiscal cliff · Budget sequestration in 2013
Bowles-Simpson Commission · Bush tax cuts
Debt-ceiling crisis (2011 · 2013) ·Deficit reduction
Health care reform · Political debates
Social Security debate · "Starve the beast"
Subprime mortgage crisis
Financial crisis of 2007–08
Government shutdowns of 1995–96
Government shutdown of 2013
Terminology[hide]
Cumulative deficit · Interest · Debt ·Balance of payments · Inflation
v
t
e
The United States debt ceiling or debt limit is a legislative mechanism to limit the amount of national debt that can be issued by theTreasury. The debt ceiling is an aggregate figure which applies to the gross debt, which includes debt in the hands of the public and in Intragovernment accounts. Because expenditures are authorized by separate legislation, the debt ceiling does not directly limit budget deficits. In effect, it can only restrain Treasury from paying for expenditures after the limit has been reached, but which have already been approved (in the budget) and appropriated.
When the debt ceiling is actually reached without an increase in the limit having been passed, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to temporarily finance the government's expenditures and obligations until a resolution can be reached. The Treasury has never reached the point of exhausting extraordinary measures. If this situation were to occur, it is unclear whether Treasury would be able to prioritize payments on debt to avoid a default on its debt obligations, but it would at least have to default on some of its non-debt obligations. A default could trigger a variety of economic problems including a financial crisis and a decline in output that would put the country into a recession.
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
2 Relationship to federal budget
3 Legislative history
3.1 1995 debt ceiling crisis
3.2 2011 debt ceiling crisis
3.3 2013 debt ceiling crisis
4 Reaching the debt limit
4.1 Extraordinary measures
4.2 Default on financial obligations
5 Controversy
6 References
7 Sources
8 Further reading
Background
The United States has had some sort of legislative limit on debt since 1917. From time to time, political disputes arise when the Treasury advises Congress that the debt ceiling is about to be reached and indicating that a default is imminent. When the debt ceiling is reached, and pending an increase in the limit, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to buy more time before the ceiling can be raised by Congress. The United States has never reached the point of default where Treasury is incapable of paying its debt obligations, except in the War of 1812 when the Burning of Washington happened and parts of Washington D.C. including the Treasury were burned.[1]
In 2011, the United States reached a point of near default. The delay in raising the debt ceiling resulted in the first downgrade in the United States credit rating, a sharp drop in the stock market, and an increase in borrowing costs. Congress raised the debt limit with the Budget Control Act of 2011, which created the fiscal cliff and set a new debt ceiling that was reached on December 31, 2012. Treasury has adopted extraordinary measures to avoid a default on its obligations. On February 4, 2013, President Barack Obama signed a suspension of the debt ceiling that ran until May 19, 2013. After May 19, the debt ceiling was raised to $16.699 trillion, the level of debt incurred during the suspension, and Treasury resumed extraordinary measures.[2] Treasury Secretary Jack Lew notified Congress that these measures would be exhausted by October 17, 2013.[3] On October 7, 2013 Treasury indicated that the debt ceiling and extraordinary measures will be exhausted and that a default will occur on October 17 when interest payments are due.[citation needed]
The United States and Denmark are the only constitutional countries to have legislative restrictions on the incurring of public debt. The Danish debt ceiling is, however, mainly a formality and follows the budgeting and expenditure process and provides ample latitude for unforeseen deficits. It has never created the periodic crises as has the American.[4]
Relationship to federal budget
The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the United States budget process, and raising the debt ceiling neither directly increases nor decreases the budget deficit, and vice versa. The Government Accountability Office explains, "the debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."[5]
The President formulates a federal budget every year, which Congress must pass, sometimes with amendments, in a concurrent resolution, which does not require the President's signature and is not binding. The budget details projected tax collections and expenditures and, therefore, specifies the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in thatfiscal year.
Legislative history
Further information: History of United States debt ceiling
Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[6] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[7]
Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget.[8] James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.[9]
In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by Congress in 1995.[10]
1995 debt ceiling crisis
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 1995
The debt-ceiling debate of 1995 led to a showdown on the federal budget, which did not pass, and resulted in the United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996.[11][12]
2011 debt ceiling crisis]
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011
In 2011, Republicans in Congress attempted to use the debt ceiling as leverage for deficit reduction. The delay in raising the debt ceiling led to the first ever downgrade in the federal government's credit rating. The credit downgrade and debt ceiling debacle contributed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 2,000 points in late July and August. Following the downgrade itself, the DJIA had one of its worst days in history and fell 635 points on August 8.[13] The GAO estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling raised borrowing costs for the government by $1.3 billion in 2011 and noted that the delay would also raise costs in later years. The Bipartisan Policy Center extended the GAO's estimates and found that the delay raised borrowing costs by $18.9 billion over ten years.[14]
2013 debt ceiling crisis
Main article: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2013)
Following the increase in the debt ceiling to $16.394 trillion in 2011,[15] the United States again reached the debt ceiling on December 31, 2012 and the Treasury began taking extraordinary measures. The fiscal cliff was resolved with the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), but no action was taken on the debt ceiling. Following the tax cuts from ATRA, the government needed to raise the debt ceiling by $700 billion to finance operations for the rest of the 2013 fiscal year.[16] Extraordinary measures were expected to be exhausted by February 15.[17] The Treasury has said it is not set up to prioritize payments, and it's not clear that it would be legal to do so. Given this situation, the Treasury would simply delay payments if funds could not be raised through extraordinary measures and the debt ceiling had not been raised. This would put a freeze on 7% of the nation's GDP, a contraction greater than the Great Recession. The economic damage would worsen as recipients of social security benefits, government contracts, and other government payments cut back on spending in response to having the freeze in their revenue.[18]
Under the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013, both houses of Congress voted to suspend the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013 until May 19, 2013. On May 19, the debt ceiling was raised to approximately $16.699 trillion to accommodate the borrowing done during the suspension period. The Treasury is now using extraordinary measures to avoid a default. Due to the impacts of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Sequester, and a $60 billion payment from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will reach the Treasury on June 28, 2013, extraordinary measures are currently predicted to last until October 17 by the Treasury,[19] but financial firms suggest funds may last a little longer. Jefferies Group says extraordinary measures may last until the end of October while Credit Suisse estimates mid-November.[20]
Reaching the debt limit
Extraordinary measures
The Treasury Department is authorized to issue debt needed to fund government operations (as authorized by each federal budget) up to the debt ceiling, with some small exceptions. When the debt ceiling is reached, Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period and utilize "extraordinary measures" to acquire funds to meet federal obligations but which do not require the issue of new debt.
These measures may include suspending investments in the "G-fund" of the individual retirement funds of federal employees, the Thrift Savings Plan. In 2011 these measures were extended to suspending investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (Postal Benefits Fund), and the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). In addition to suspending investments, certain CSRDF investments were also redeemed early.[21] In 1985, the Treasury had also exchanged Treasury securities for non-Treasury securities held by the Federal Financing Bank.[22]
However, these amounts are not sufficient to cover government operations.[23] Treasury first used these measures on December 16, 2009, to remain within the debt ceiling, and avoid a government shutdown,[24] and also used it during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. However, there are limits to how much can be raised by these measures.
Default on financial obligations
If the debt ceiling is not raised by the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will be unable to pay its financial obligations. The United States has never reached this point. If extraordinary measures are exhausted, the executive branch has the authority to determine which obligations are paid and which are not.[25]
Failure to pay obligations has been characterized as a default; however, some have argued that the executive branch can choose to prioritize interest payments on bonds, which would avoid an immediate, direct default on sovereign debt. During the debt ceiling crisis in 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner argued that prioritization of interest payments would not help since government expenditures would have needed to be cut by an unrealistic 40% if the debt ceiling is not raised. Also, a default on non-debt obligations would still undermine American creditworthiness according to at least one rating agency.[26] In 2011, the Treasury suggested that it could not prioritize certain types of expenditures because all expenditures are on equal footing under the law. In this view, when extraordinary measures are exhausted, no payments could be made at all and the United States would be in default on all of its obligations.[27] The CBO notes that prioritization would not avoid the technical definition found in Black's Law Dictionary where default is defined as “the failure to make a payment when due.”[28]
Controversy
A vote to increase the debt ceiling is usually seen as a formality[by whom?], needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by Congress and the President. Earlier reports to Congress from experts have repeatedly said that the debt limit is an ineffective means to restrain the growth of debt.[8] James Surowiecki argues that the debt ceiling originally served a useful purpose. When introduced, the President had stronger authority to borrow and spend as he pleased; however, after 1974, Congress began passing comprehensive budget resolutions that specify exactly how much money the government can spend.[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[29][30]
A January 2013 poll of a panel of highly regarded economists found that 84% agreed or strongly agreed that, since Congress already approves spending and taxation, "a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse fiscal outcomes." Only one member of the panel, Luigi Zingales, disagreed with the statement.[31]
References
Jump up^ [1]
Jump up^ Sahadi & May 17, 2013 2013.
Jump up^ [2]
Jump up^ DR Nyheder.
Jump up^ Government Accountability Office (February 22, 2011). "Debt Limit: Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market".
Jump up^ Austin 2008, p. 2.
Jump up^ Austin 2008, p. 2-3.
^ Jump up to:a b Kowalcky & LeLoup 1993, p. 14.
^ Jump up to:a b Surowiecki 2011.
Jump up^ Green 2011.
Jump up^ U.S. GAO, "Debt Ceiling: Analysis of Actions During the 1995-1996 Crisis", AIMD-96-130, 1996 August 30
Jump up^ New Republic, "How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama", Kara Brandeisky, 2 August 2011
Jump up^ Sweet 8 August 2011.
Jump up^ Bipartisan Policy Center, p. 1.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 1.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013.
Jump up^ Sahadi 2013.
Jump up^ Yglesias 2013.
Jump up^ [3]
Jump up^ [4]
Jump up^ GAO 2012, p. 10.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 3-4.
Jump up^ Timothy Geithner (April 4, 2011). "Geithner Letter to Congress". Treasury Department.
Jump up^ "U.S. National Debt Tops Debt Limit". CBS News. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ Austin & Levit 2012.
Jump up^ Lawder 2012.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 8.
Jump up^ Levit et al. 2013, p. 15.
Jump up^ Lowrey, Annie (May 16, 2011). "Debt ceiling crisis: The debt ceiling is a pointless, dangerous relic, and it should be abolished". Slate. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ Epstein, Jennifer (July 18, 2011). "Moody's: Abolish the debt limit". Politico. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
Jump up^ IGM Forum.
Sources
"Amerikanere kan lære af dansk gældsloft" (in Danish). DR Nyheder. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
"Analysis of 2011-2012 Actions Taken and Effect of Delayed Increase on Borrowing Costs". GAO. July 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Austin, D. Andrew (29 April 2008). "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases". Congressional Research Service.
Austin, D. Andrew; Levit, Mindy R. (27 December 2012). "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases". Congressional Research Service.
"Debt ceiling". IGM Forum. Chicago Booth. 15 January 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
"Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, November 2012". Congressional Budget Office. November 2012.
"Debt Limit Analysis". Bipartisan Policy Center. 27 November 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
"Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market". GAO-11-203. GAO. February 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Green, Joshua (9 May 2011). "How Dick Gephardt Fixed the Debt-Ceiling Problem". The Atlantic.
Kowalcky, Linda W.; LeLoup, Lance T. (1993). "Congress and the Politics of Statutory Debt Limitation". Public Administration Review 53 (1). JSTOR 977272.
Lawder, David (29 June 2011). "Prioritizing debt payments won't work: Geithner". Reuters.
Levit, Mandy R.; Brass, Clinton T.; Nicola, Timothy J.; Nuschler, Dawn. "Reaching the Debt Limit: Background and Potential Effects on Government Operations".
Masters, Jonathan. "U.S. Debt Ceiling: Costs and Consequences". Renewing America. Council on Foreign Relations.
Sahadi, Jeanne (7 January 2013). "Debt Ceiling: 'Chaotic' choices on 100 million payments". CNNMoney. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
Surowiecki, James (1 August 2011). "Smash the Ceiling". The New Yorker.
Sweet, Ken (8 August 2011). "Dow plunges after S&P downgrade". CNNMoney.
Yglesias, Matthew (16 January 2013). "What if Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling?". Slate.
Further reading
Eisner, Robert (1993). "Federal Debt". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. OCLC 317650570,50016270 and 163149563
Categories:
Government finances in the United States
United States public debt
Saturday, October 12, 2013
In its first day, an online crowdfunding campaign for an innovative cancer technology has raised $20,000 in donations.
In its first day, an online crowdfunding campaign for an innovative cancer technology has raised $20,000 in donations.
WaveCheck — a painless, non-surgical clinical technique — is poised to transform chemotherapy response monitoring for women with breast cancer.
Invented by Sunnybrook's Dr. Gregory Czarnota and Ryerson University's Michael C. Kolios, WaveCheck combines traditional ultrasound with new software to detect responses in chemotherapy in breast cancer tissues, making it possible for a woman to know what's happening inside her own body weeks, not months, into her chemotherapy treatment.
WaveCheck has been used in clinical studies at Sunnybrook with nearly 100 women receiving upfront, neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat locally-advanced breast cancer. These results are published in two leading journals, Clinical Cancer Research and Translational Oncology.
To make WaveCheck available to women everywhere as fast as possible, MaRS Innovation seeks to raise $96,987 on Indiegogo from October 9 to November 27, 2013 and get the first of three North American clinical study locations running in parallel with Sunnybrook's existing data. The campaign's overall goal is to raise $687,950 to fund all three sites with WaveCheck's partners.
Watch the video below to learn more and visit the Indiegogo page to contribute to the crowdfunding campaign:
Friday, October 11, 2013
CFIA suspends licence of Beira Mar Importers Co. Ltd.
CFIA suspends licence of Beira Mar Importers Co. Ltd.
October 11, 2013 (Ottawa): The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) suspended the licence of Beira Mar Importers Co. Ltd., effective October 8, 2013. The cheese importing company is located in Burnaby, BC.
There are no food safety issues with distributed product, and no product is being recalled. Furthermore, all imported cheese products at the facility remain under detention.
The licence was suspended because the operator failed several times to implement corrective actions for non-compliances such as failing to provide information as required under the Dairy Products Regulations paragraph 26.3 (d) and paragraph 26.4 (a) and (b).
Beira Mar Importers Co. Ltd. will not have their licence reinstated until they have fully demonstrated the capacity to implement the necessary corrective actions as approved by the CFIA.
The CFIA safeguards food, animals and plants which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy, and access to international markets. Licences and registrations of federally registered establishments or companies can be suspended or cancelled for failing to comply with relevant CFIA Acts and Regulations.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Allergy Alert - Undeclared milk in certain Norma's Wholesome Bakery Goods brand banana bread and certain The Goodyman brand cookies
Allergy Alert - Undeclared milk in certain Norma's Wholesome Bakery Goods brand banana bread and certain The Goodyman brand cookies
Recall / advisory date:
October 8, 2013
Reason for recall / advisory:
Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:
Class 1
Company / Firm:
Norma's Bakery Ltd.
Distribution:
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, May be National, Ontario, Saskatchewan
Extent of the distribution:
Retail
Reference number:
8382
Contents
Advisory details
Affected products
More information
Media Enquiries
Photos
Advisory details
Ottawa, October 8, 2013 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Norma's Bakery Ltd. are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume the banana bread and cookies described below. The affected products contain milk which is not declared on the label.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products.
Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk.
The manufacturer, Norma's Bakery Ltd., Chilliwack, BC, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace. The CFIAis monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.
Affected products
Brand NameCommon NameSizeUPC
Norma's Wholesome Bakery Goods Banana Bread 100 g 7 73510 00231 3
Norma's Wholesome Bakery Goods Chocolate Chip Banana Bread 100 g 7 73510 00232 0
The Goodyman Chunky chocolate (cookies) 100 g 6 83978 00003 8
More information
For more information, consumers and industry can contact:
Norma's Bakery Ltd. at 604-792-4023; or,
CFIA by filling out the online feedback form.
For information on common food allergens, visit the Food Allergens web page.
Product photos
Printer ready version of photos
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Updated Health Hazard Alert - Certain frozen beef burgers may contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria
Updated Health Hazard Alert - Certain frozen beef burgers may contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria
Recall / advisory date:
October 8, 2013
Reason for recall / advisory:
Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:
Class 1
Company / Firm:
Belmont Meats Ltd.
Distribution:
National
Extent of the distribution:
Retail
Contents
Advisory details
Affected products
More information
Media Enquiries
Related Recalls
Photos
Advisory details
Ottawa, October 8, 2013 - The public warning issued on October 2, 2013 has been updated to include additional products.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Belmont Meats Ltd. (Est. 112) are warning the public not to consume the beef burgers described below because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
This recall is the result of an ongoing food safety investigation initiated as a result of a recent outbreak investigation. There may be recalls of additional products or best before dates as the food safety investigation at this facility continues.
The manufacturer, Belmont Meats Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, is voluntarily recalling all affected products from the marketplace. TheCFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.
Affected products
Brand Name
Common Name
Size
UPC
Additional Info
Compliments
Super 6 Beef Burgers
8 x 170 g (6oz) / 1.36 kg
0 55742 34129 4
Best before date
2014 MA 27 B##*
* where ## is a variable number
Distribution
Ontario, sold in the following Sobeys banner stores: Sobeys, Sobeys Urban, Foodland, Freshco and Price Chopper.
President's Choice
Beef Burgers
4.54 kg
0 60383 37167 8
Best before date
2014 FE 25 B##*
BMP EST:112
* where ## is a variable number
Distribution
Sold nationally at Loblaws banner stores
Webers Bucket of Burgers
Beef Burgers
1.02 kg
6 27843 06456 5
Best before date
1313 B##*
BB/MA 2014 MA 11
* where ## is a variable number
Distribution
may be national
Related alerts
2013-10-02 - Certain Compliments brand Super 8 Beef Burgers may contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria
More information
For more information, consumers and industry can contact:
Belmont Meats Ltd., Azim Hosein, Director of Technical Services at (416) 749 -7250 ext. 334; or,
CFIA by filling out the online feedback form.
Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled. Consumption of food contaminated with these bacteria my cause serious and potentially life-threatening illnesses. Symptoms include severe abdominal pain and bloody diarrhea. Some people may have seizures or strokes and some may need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis. Others may live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die.
For more information on foodborne pathogens, visit the Causes of Food Poisoning web page.
Product photos
Printer ready version of photos
Media enquiries
CFIA Media Relations
613-773-6600
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Toronto lawyer has launched a challenge against the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada as one of the three judges representing Quebec on the court’s bench.
Toronto lawyer has launched a challenge against the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada as one of the three judges representing Quebec on the court’s bench.
As a Federal Court judge, the Supreme Court Act precludes Nadon from being appointed to the Supreme Court Act, says lawyer Rocco Galati, who is joining with Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. to bring the application.
Nadon was officially sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court in a private ceremony at the top court yesterday.
The notice of the challenge, filed with the Federal Court yesterday, names Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who nominated Nadon for the job, as one of the respondents.
When properly interpreted, s. 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act allows only for the appointment of Court of Appeal and Superior Court judges, or a lawyer who has been a member of the bar for at least 10 years, the notice reads.
“Conforming to constitutional requirements is always an issue, abiding by the law is always an issue,” Galati says.
Prior to Nadon’s nomination, Harper sought former Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie’s opinion on the matter. Binnie said, “There is nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada Act” that would prevent the appointment.
But Galati says it wasn’t up to Binnie to make that decision.
“We feel that the issue should not have been the subject of an opinion of a retired judge, but should have gone to the eight judges of Supreme Court on a reference if they had any doubt about it. There’s a lot to doubt here in terms of the ability to appoint Federal Court judges as Quebec judges,” he says.
In his written opinion to the prime minister, Binnie said other federal court judges, including justices Frank Iacobucci and Marshall Rothstein, have been appointed to the Supreme Court without controversy.
“That’s never an answer,” says Galati. “The fact of the matter is this has never been raised.
“The difference here is that the other federal judges were not from Quebec,” he adds. [Nadon] is the first one from Quebec. There are different provisions that apply.”
Binnie had also said although a Federal Court judge doesn’t fulfill one of the requirements for appointment to the top court — being a judge of either a Court of Appeal or a Superior Court — he meets the other criteria, which is having been a member of the bar for more than 10 years.
“In the English version the words ‘is or has been’ refer grammatically to both judges and advocates,” Binnie said. “If an individual has ‘at least ten years standing at the bar of a province’ he or she ‘is or has been’ such a member, and despite a lapse of time while serving the Federal Court, the s. 5 requirement is met.”
For Galati, Nadon is either a judge or a lawyer, and judges of the Federal Court cannot be appointed to the Supreme Court. Binnie’s reasoning is also “besides the point,” he says.
“There’s a lot of reasons the provision is there. One of the reasons with respect to the accommodation of Quebec is that you don’t want people being absent that long from Quebec and then purporting to be Quebec judges.
“[Nadon] has been a Federal Court judge for 20 years. The section doesn’t allow his appointment.”
Galati is also seeking an interim order to stay Nadon’s appointment.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay's spokesperson Paloma Aguilar told Legal Feeds: "Justice Nadon is qualified and we are certain he will serve the court with distinction. Constitutional experts agree that the Supreme Court Act allows for a sitting Federal Court judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada — this includes the opinion of former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie.”
Update 1:45 pm: comments from Justice minister
Update: 3:40 pm: Press release from the Supreme Court of Canada: "Mr. Justice Marc Nadon has decided, in light of the challenge to his appointment pending before the Federal Court, not to participate for the time being in matters before the Supreme Court of Canada."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)