美国债务上限之争胶着，宪法修正案成财长底牌

    近几周，美国财长蒂姆•盖特纳在关于债务上限的辩论中频频发力，并暗示总统可以通过美国宪法第十四修正案（the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution）之精神轻松提升债务上限。近8周以来，这一说法在坊间广为流传。5月25日，在迈克•阿伦（美国颇有影响力的记者，服务于政治新闻类网站Politico.com，该网站同时出版同类读物Playbook——译注）宴请盖特纳的Politico Playbook早餐上，该策略才开始以更正式的面貌流传开来。

    用餐时，在被阿伦问及有关潜在的债务违约及债务上限争议时，盖特纳回复道：“我认为有些人是明知故问，他们以为总会有办法来对付违约。这个问题无需再讨论。好好想想吧，有时我真想说—难道真的要我给你们读读第十四条修正案吗？”

    尽管奥巴马总统一直在回避对第十四条修正案做出评论或解释，然而盖特纳作为公认的政府发言人直言不讳地指出，第十四条修正案赋予了总统提升债务上限的法律权利。

    在早餐当中，盖特纳还宣读了第十四修正案第四款节选章节：

    “经法律认可的合众国公债，包括因支付平定暴乱或叛乱有功人员的养老金和奖金而产生的债务，其效力不容质疑。但合众国或任何一州都不得承担或偿付因资助对合众国作乱或谋叛而产生的任何债务或义务，或因丧失或解放任何奴隶而提出的任何赔偿要求；所有此类债务、义务和要求均应被认为是非法和无效的。”

    事实上，美国最高法院在波利诉美国政府案【Perry v United States （1935年）】一案中曾就第十四修正案做出过判决。该案与其他一系列案件组成了著名的黄金条款案（Gold Clause Cases），由最高法院负责审理。这些案例旨在质疑美国国会是否可以变通或利用其中的条款来偿还美国的债务。

    最高法院关于波利诉美国政府案的判决引用了第四款的以下章节：

    “第十四修正案第四款之规定‘经法律认可的合众国公债……其效力不容质疑’已明确了一项基本原则，同样适用于之后发行的国债，至于之前所发行之国债，修正案的实施以及‘公债之效力’这一说法涵盖任何与公债信用有关之事项。”

    所以，如果有效的话，那么盖特纳的声明或将有据可依，因为美国最高法院之前已经做出了国会无权取消美国政府国债之判决。点击此处查看具体判决。

    如下图所示，美国国债的信用违约互换市场显示美国政府出现违约的概率极低，而且近6个月中违约概率也没有出现增加多少。这或许是盖特纳讲话那么有底气的原因。目前，10年期美国国债信用违约互换的利差为58个基点，明显低于今年的高点。相比较而言，10年期德国国债信用违约互换的利差为59个基点，希腊为1，550个基点，西班牙为268个基点。

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has heightened the debate over the debt ceiling extension in recent weeks by implying that the President could simply push through an extension of the debt ceiling based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While rumors of this defense have been circulating for the last 8 weeks or so, the idea was more officially circulated at a May 25th Politico Playbook breakfast at which Mike Allen was hosting Geithner.

    At that breakfast, Allen asked Geithner about a potential default and the debt ceiling debate and Geithner responded with the following:

    "I think there are some people who are pretending not to understand it, who think there's leverage for them in threatening a default. I don't understand it as a negotiating position. I mean really think about it, you're going to say that-- can I read you the Fourteenth Amendment?"

    Even as President Obama has avoided opining or interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, Geithner, who presumably is speaking as a representative of the administration, has made it very clear that he believes that Fourteenth Amendment gives a President the legal right to extend the debt ceiling.

    As noted, in the same breakfast Geithner then read the following excerpt, Section 4, from the Fourteenth Amendment:

    "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

    In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually ruled on the Fourteenth Amendment in Perry v United States (1935). This case was part of a series of cases brought before the United States Supreme Court that were known as the Gold Clause Cases. The gist of these cases was to question whether the U.S. Congress could change the form by, or terms under which, U.S. debts could be repaid.

    The ruling by the Supreme Court in Perry v United States specifically referenced Section 4 in the following excerpt:

    "Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt" embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

    So, in effect, it would appear that there is some precedent for Geither's statements as it seems that the United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that voiding a U.S. government debt is beyond the power of Congress. Here is the ruling.

    As is outlined in the following chart, the credit default swap markets on U.S. government debt are signaling that a default on U.S. government is highly unlikely and the odds of such haven't increased much over the last six months, which perhaps also gives credence to Geithner's view. Currently, CDS on 10-year U.S. treasuries are trading at 58bps, which is well off its highs for the year. By way of comparison, German 10-year CDS are trading at 59bps, Greek CDS are trading at 1,550bps, and Spanish CDS are trading at 268bps.

    即使如盖特纳所说，奥巴马总统有权单方面决定提升债务上限，且这一切都有法可依，但问题在于这一举措是否真的能成为最现实的解决办法或最明智的政治途径。就后一点而言，即便奥巴马挥舞第十四修正案这把令箭让共和党统辖的国会俯首称臣，这一策略的风险在于随后可能出现的美国主权债务信用风险上升，以及高院可能就这一问题向两党直接摊牌。

    因此，总统和其民主战线真的会选择第十四修正案这一出路吗？尽管参议员舒默个人并不一定代表全体民主党人，但在7月1日与记者通话时，关于第十四修正案这一问题，他的回答是：“肯定值得一试”

    的确如此。

    Even if we accept that President Obama has the legal authority to make a unilateral decision on extending the debt ceiling as Geithner has been suggesting and legal precedent appears to support, the question is really whether it is the most practical or best political path to take. Regarding the latter point, it would seem that while President Obama would get a clear win by trumping the Republican Congress with the Fourteenth Amendment, the downside risk to this strategy is a potentially increased credit risk associated with U.S. sovereign debt and a potential Supreme Court showdown between Republicans and Democrats.

    So, would the President and the Democratic rank and file actually pursue the Fourteenth Amendment option? While he doesn't necessarily speak for all Democrats, Senator Schumer said on a call to reporters on July 1st when asked about the Fourteenth Amendment responded, "It is certainly worth exploring."

    Indeed.