To: yard_man who wrote (155512 ) 3/12/2002 6:07:32 PM From: Giordano Bruno Respond to of 436258 Consulting with Andersen...? O'Neill Is Expected to Shift Funds To Delay Debt-Limit ShowdownEventually, the money -- along with all lost interest -- would be put back into interest-bearing instruments. And Mr. O'Neill might have to shift only several tens of billions of dollars to keep the government functioning. A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is expected to buy time in a political dispute over the federal-debt ceiling by maneuvering some funds that the government manages for federal retirees, congressional officials and lobbyists say. The Treasury has asked Congress to lift the federal-debt ceiling to $6.7 trillion because the government could bump up against the current $5.95 trillion limit in late March. But with Democrats and many Republican conservatives opposed, GOP leaders don't have the votes yet to push the measure through the House. Delaying the debt-limit vote could give Republican leaders time to win votes for the move by attaching it to popular legislation paying for the war in Afghanistan. However, Congress isn't expected to be ready to pass the bill financing the war until at April or May at the earliest. That leaves Treasury officials considering a shift in government employee retirement funds to keep the government from exceeding the debt limit in late March. Mr. O'Neill can legally shift money in retirement funds that the Treasury Department invests for federal retirees into noninterest bearing accounts. By shifting that money, it is no longer considered to count against the federal borrowing limit. That frees up room for the Treasury to borrow more money to keep the government running and paying its bills. Such a financing maneuver was used by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in a budget showdown between the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress, which opposed the action. Many Republicans criticized Mr. Rubin when he shifted the retirement funds nearly seven years ago. Democrats defended the moves as necessary to avoid a default. Today, tinkering with retirement savings may be more problematic, what with the public and lawmakers focused on Enron Corp. and the demise of its employees' retirement funds. Already, the move has alarmed leaders of some public employees' unions, who say it could snowball into salary and benefit cuts for their members. House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R., Texas), however, downplayed the significance of using the retirement funds now. "We've had to do this before. These are all interim financing arrangements, and they are all management tools," Mr. Armey said. "It is not ominous in any regard." Eventually, the money -- along with all lost interest -- would be put back into interest-bearing instruments. And Mr. O'Neill might have to shift only several tens of billions of dollars to keep the government functioning. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis wouldn't provide specifics Tuesday when asked about plans to manage the government's borrowing needs. The plans were described on Monday by several congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We are working with Congress to pass an increase in the debt ceiling, and we will do whatever it takes to avoid a default should we not get" a higher borrowing limit from Congress, Ms. Davis said. A federal default is considered unthinkable because it would soil the government's record of always repaying its debts and force it to borrow at higher interest rates. That would have a jarring impact that would ripple through the economy, many analysts say. Even so, many Democrats are poised to vote against a debt-ceiling increase because they argue that Mr. Bush's budget and tax-cutting policies have plunged the government back into fiscal problems. The last increase in the borrowing limit was in 1997, just before the government began running annual surpluses under former President Clinton. Many Republicans also don't like voting to increase borrowing because they say it is forced by excessive federal spending. Updated March 12, 2002 3:44 p.m. EST