So, reading Sen. Pat Toomey's discourse on what a threatened refusal to raise the debt ceiling would really mean, in practice - a clumsier, more painful way to force necessary spending cuts than if the spenders would just agree to legislate them - I fail to see how such a threat differs from the administration and e.g. Sen. Barbara Boxer threatening the economy (and specifically and regulated entities with Washington representatives) with EPA cramming down the 'global warming' agenda in a more clumsy, more painful way if these lobbies and Republicans (and a few dozen elected Democrats) refused to negotiate surrender on cap-and-trade legislation.
Other than that one carried lurid threats of not only financial ruin but the end of the world, while the other just warned of economic consequences.
These people do not come to this debate with clean hands.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article