Questions for Martha McSally: Government shutdown and default on the national debt

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to
the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics — I am
not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.

Martha McSally now has two primary opponents, Shelley Kais, President of Kais E Systems, Inc., who worked for the McSally campaign during the
special election to fill Congresswoman Giffords’ seat, who has formed an exploratory committee. And Ed Martin, who announced his candidacy today.  Martin is a former spokesman for U.S. senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), and has
been an occasional guest host on the
radio show hosted by Tucson gabber Jon Justice since moving to Arizona. Martin's website is more of a jeremiad than it is a campaign web site.

So, on to hot topics:

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy of governing-by-extortion, i.e., taking the federal government hostage and demanding that Democrats submit to their hostage demands — essentially to nullify the 2012 election results and to enact the GOP agenda that voters rejected last November — or they will: (a) shut down the federal government and/or (b) default on the national debt for the first time in American history?

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy to shut down the federal government unless Democrats submit to their hostage demand to "defund Obamacare," which is a new version of the long-discredited and rejected doctrine of nullification through the force of governing-by-extortion?

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy of threatening to default on the national debt for the first time in American history unless Democrats submit to their hostage demand to "defund Obamacare,"
which is a new version of the long-discredited and rejected doctrine of
nullification through the force of governing-by-extortion?

Or does Martha McSally agree with this pronouncement by Ronaldus Magnus, President Ronald Reagan in a radio address to the nation on September 26, 1987:

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings
the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility.
This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those
who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would
skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal
deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to
itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a
well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that
set us apart from much of the world.

Does Martha McSally know that defaulting on the national debt is prohibited by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 4? ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.") And does McSally know that raising the federal debt ceiling merely acknowledges that the U.S. will honor its debts already approved and incurred by the U.S. Congress, so that we do not become a deadbeat nation?

Does Martha McSally understand that the mere act of threatening a default on the national debt and calling into doubt the full faith and credit of the United States can have severe unintended consequences to U.S. (and world) financial markets, and cause an economic downturn? Does she remember the last time Republicans did this in 2011, it caused an economic slowdown over the summer and halted the economic recovery?

Does Martha McSally understand that the mere act of threatening a default on
the national debt and calling into doubt the full faith and credit of
the United States by Republicans caused our credit rating to be downgraded in 2011? Recall this: S&P
| United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To
Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative:

We lowered our long-term rating
on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over
raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate
indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public
spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on
raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will
remain a contentious and fitful process.

* * *

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we
see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less
effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed
. The
statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political
bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

Voters in Congressional District 2 have the right to know your positions on current hot topics, Ms. McSally. Feel free to answer these questions by posting a comment. More questions to follow.

Comments are closed.