Standard & Poor’s downgrade of America’s debt couldn’t come at a worse time. The result is likely to be higher borrowing costs for the government at all levels, and higher interest on your variable-rate mortgage, your auto loan, your credit card loans, and every other penny you borrow.
Why did S&P do it?
Not because America failed to pay its creditors on time. As you may have noticed, we avoided a default.
And not because we might fail to pay our bills at the end of 2012 if tea-party Republicans again hold the nation hostage when their votes will next be needed to raise the debt ceiling. This is a legitimate worry and might have been grounds for a downgrade, but it’s not S&P’s rationale.
S&P has downgraded the U.S. because it doesn’t think we’re on track to reduce the nation’s debt enough to satisfy S&P — and we’re not doing it in a way S&P prefers.
Here’s what S&P said: “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” S&P also blames what it considers to be weakened “effectiveness, stability, and predictability” of U.S. policy making and political institutions.
Pardon me for asking, but who gave Standard & Poor’s the authority to tell America how much debt it has to shed, and how?
If we pay our bills, we’re a good credit risk. If we don’t, or aren’t likely to, we’re a bad credit risk. When, how, and by how much we bring down the long term debt — or, more accurately, the ratio of debt to GDP — is none of S&P’s business.
S&P’s intrusion into American politics is also ironic because, as I pointed out recently, much of our current debt is directly or indirectly due to S&P’s failures (along with the failures of the two other major credit-rating agencies — Fitch and Moody’s) to do their jobs before the financial meltdown. Until the eve of the collapse S&P gave triple-A ratings to some of the Street’s riskiest packages of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
Had S&P done its job and warned investors how much risk Wall Street was taking on, the housing and debt bubbles wouldn’t have become so large – and their bursts wouldn’t have brought down much of the economy. You and I and other taxpayers wouldn’t have had to bail out Wall Street; millions of Americans would now be working now instead of collecting unemployment insurance; the government wouldn’t have had to inject the economy with a massive stimulus to save millions of other jobs; and far more tax revenue would now be pouring into the Treasury from individuals and businesses doing better than they are now.
In other words, had Standard & Poor’s done its job over the last decade, today’s budget deficit would be far smaller and the nation’s future debt wouldn’t look so menacing.
We’d all be better off had S&P done the job it was supposed to do, then. We’ve paid a hefty price for its nonfeasance.
A pity S&P is not even doing its job now. We’ll be paying another hefty price for its malfeasance today.
Disclaimer: This page contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Karma. The rating should have been lowered before the goverment went around and around and around.Sens a message to Washington. Why is it such a shock. They S and P said they would. If it was another country america would have rated to junk status. Lets face it the ratings groups should be wiped out and a international group should be formed. My real question is
1. Why are they still operating with their record.
2. Why has non one gone to jail
3.Why do we really care any more as we will be third world in three years anyway.
The next move it to get out of the hole. That means only one real way TAX TAX TAX
I’m not sure why S&P having an opinion on how well the US can pay it’s debt constitutes “the authority to tell America how much debt it has to shed, and how”. They are a credit rating agency, and they wee a financial problem where corporate tax cuts have not helped the unemployment rate, the economy is not growing robustly and there will be less and less capability to maneuver with the debt reduction and already low fed rate, as well as quantitative easing having less positive effects than hoped for in spurring the recovery.
They and the other rating agencies blew it on the financial crisis lead up obviously, but now they get more conservative and do something unpopular they are vilified? Basically this comes down to Wall Street not liking anything that doesn’t feather their nests. So corporate bonuses will continue despite losses and an inability to foresee and guard against this instability and slow recovery in the markets. But the scapegoating will continue. S&P dropped the rating one notch. A fraction of a full level really. And the outrage is palpable. The other rating agencies haven’t moved. If S&P is right, people will factor that into the T-bill prices. If the other two are right, the Fed should still be able to demand a low return and get more than enough buyers for the debt financing. What are you whining about? The market actually operating and competing on analysis from different firms?