Your common sense (as always) brings to mind one of my theoretical observations.
We all love to talk about the failures of “compromise” but we also have to admit we only have one House and the No Action alternative has its problems as well as its good points.
Everyone from Bismark (I think he said it originally) to Russell Kirk says that while compromise often turns you away from principles, we have to recognize that “Politcs is the Art of the Possible” and Prudence comes into play at all levels of action for the conservative.
Even if the House took no action, I have no reason to believe whatever gyrations the Obama administration goes through would provide the needed course correction. It would all be as much Theater as we have had leading up to the problem. Only a new Senate majority and President with a forced Constitutional amendment will protect and correct his and Nancy and Harry’s actions from the past two years. The “no action” option, while satisfying, produces no change in the current administration.
Right. The one with the purse-strings.
At least until the Democrat and Republican "leaders" hand that power over to a "bipartisan" committee of the elites of the elites.
You totally lost me. The “no action” means the debt ceiling remains and Obama can no longer borrow to propel his horrific spending. The debt ceiling acts as an immediate brake on spending. In fact, real cuts would have to occur since revenue equals only 60% of what Obama would spend each month.
No action = immediate deep spending cuts. This is why it is so critical for the Tea Party freshman to hammer Boner and make sure he does not surrender their power with any deal raising the current debt ceiling without immediate spending cuts.
How does this produce no change in the current administration? I don’t follow you.