[Svartalfiar]

States cannot postpone bankrupty by currency manipulations like the feds do, so the consequences of not sending fiscally conservative reps would be felt quite immediately.

But the problem you're missing here is that the states have zero say in who gets sent to Washington. The people directly elect Senators, and they aren't going to feel the consequences immediately, and it'll be very indirectly once they do. (How many people see the issues with the Federal budget as it is now, and vote accordingly?) State budgets hurting isn't going to be able impact what the Feds do (or who's sent) in any meaningful way. That's why the 17th being repealed is a needed part of the reform, so the states, who see the budget hit, are able to make those Senator changes as needed.

[Boogieman]

“The people directly elect Senators, and they aren’t going to feel the consequences immediately, and it’ll be very indirectly once they do.”

Indirectly? Do you think the people of Detroit felt the consequences of their city’s bankruptcy only indirectly?

“(How many people see the issues with the Federal budget as it is now, and vote accordingly?) “

Well that doesn’t impact them, as the feds stall bankruptcy with currency manipulation, at least for now. If the states can’t pay, they have no similar mechanism to forestall things, the effects would be felt very quickly by the citizens as states default, their credit ratings tank, and the state has to cut services.

Yes, I agree the 17th should be repealed, but even without that, if the states have to foot the bill for the federal budget directly, it would have swift consequences.