Has the U.S. Government Ever "Defaulted"? (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (25 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
Release Date |
Dec. 8, 2016 |
Report Number |
R44704 |
Report Type |
Report |
Authors |
D. Andrew Austin, Analyst in Economic Policy |
Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
During recent debt limit episodes, federal officials have contended that if the debt limit were to
constrain the government’s ability to meet its obligations, that would be an unprecedented
blemish on the nation’s credit. For example, the U.S. Treasury has asserted that “(f)ailing to
increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the
government to default on its legal obligations” or that it “would represent an irresponsible retreat
from a core American value: we are a nation that honors all of its commitments. It would cause
the government to default on its legal obligations.”
Failure to pay obligations on time is regarded as a central indicator of default, although default
may be triggered by a wide range of contractual provisions. More generally, the concept of
default stems from contract law, and thus may be ambiguous because contract terms may be
private or contracts may be incomplete, in that the consequences of some contingencies are left
unspecified. For instance, the terms under which Treasury securities are offered lack any mention
of payment delays or nonpayment. The ambiguity of the term “default” leads many third parties
to develop their own definitions to monitor compliance with promises to pay.
The U.S. Treasury in some historical instances was unable to pay all its obligations on time or
made payments on terms that disappointed creditors. Those instances resulted from extraordinary
stresses on public finances. Over time, the United States has managed its finances so that its
credit history compares favorably to nearly all other advanced countries.
This report examines three episodes in the federal government’s fiscal history when some have
questioned the public credit of the U.S. government. During the War of 1812, the federal
government eventually became unable to meet its obligations. Shortly before that war, Congress
had declined to renew the charter of the first Bank of the United States, leaving the government
without a fiscal agent. In addition, President Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Gallatin had
dismantled the administrative machinery needed to collect internal revenues, leaving Treasury
revenues heavily dependent on customs income. In 1814, military expenses and lagging revenue
left the U.S. Treasury unable to meet all of its obligations, including some interest payments on
federal debt. The end of that war, the establishment of the second Bank of the United States, and
the rebound of tariff revenues put federal finances on a sounder foundation.
In March 1933, newly inaugurated President Franklin Roosevelt soon took steps to suspend the
gold standard, as one measure to address severe disinflation, a collapse of the banking system,
and other consequences of the Great Depression. While the Supreme Court upheld actions that
suspended the gold standard, others contended that the cancellation of gold clauses in federal
bond contracts amounted to a restructuring of debt. Although the cancellation of gold clauses in
1933-1934 had no discernable effect on the U.S. Treasury’s ability to borrow, holders of Treasury
securities lost money relative to what they had expected to receive.
More recently, when the U.S. Treasury failed to make timely payments to some small investors in
the spring of 1979, some dubbed the incident a “mini-default.” While the payment delays
inconvenienced many investors, the stability of the wider market in Treasury securities was never
at risk. Shifts in monetary policy, as constraining inflation became a policy priority, provide a
stronger explanation for changes in yields in federal securities. Moreover, payment delays were
not uncommon at that time, when automatic data processing was at a relatively primitive stage.
Other countries that defaulted in the 1930s or in the 19th century apparently suffered no lasting
damage to their ability to borrow. Nonetheless, the prominent role of U.S. Treasury securities in
global and domestic financial arrangements implies that systematic delays in Treasury payments
now could have serious consequences.