Judging by the comments on Mollie’s post, the Ricochetoisie appears to condemn the McConnell plan for resolving the debt ceiling impasse as an abdication of responsibility. Kevin Williamson over at NRO lays out an alternative, which to me at least, seems slightly more palatable. But only slightly.
Congress should act now to pass a very narrowly tailored bill that would permit the issuance of new debt — but only for the purpose of financing current debt service….
Why pass such a bill?
First, because we have something on the order of $500 billion of debt to roll over in August. That doesn’t mean adding $500 billion to the national debt, but it does mean paying off old bonds and issuing new ones. If borrowing costs rise, which they very well may, that will mean adding modestly to the national debt. But it will take the possibility of a default entirely off the table. Talk of a pending U.S. default is mostly irresponsible grandstanding, but ensuring that we will meet our debt-service obligations removes a source of uncertainty from the markets and takes a powerful rhetorical tool away from the Democrats.
…Passing such legislation is good politics and necessary policy. If the Democrats were to take a stand against it, they would be in effect dragging the nation toward the possibility of default — a possibility I still regard as remote, but one that you don’t really want to take a single step toward.
The responses to Kevin’s post on NRO seem to suggest that National Review readers are on board with this plan, though they doubt something so “sensible” would get through Congress. My hunch is that Ricochet readers wouldn’t like this idea, that you would much prefer to see the challenge dealt with head on with drastic spending cuts, or a balanced budget amendment, or some closed tax loopholes, or a combination of some or all of those things. Is that about right? What say you of Mr. Williamson’s proposal?