Chad Livengood Falls Victim To Dread Disease
The News Journal‘s Chad Livengood covers state politics and has done an excellent job. He’s brought us the coverage of Disgraced Auditor Tom Wagner, for example. That’s why today’s story on how failure to raise the U.S.’s debt ceiling will affect Delaware seems a bit…off.
Delaware’s top Democratic political leaders are predicting dire consequences for the state if Congress fails to increase the nation’s borrowing capacity before the Aug. 2 deadline.
Others, however, say the threat is overblown.
Oh goody, balance! Chris Coons and Jack Markell discuss the services that might be cut in a default. A couple of economists discuss how it is hard to judge what will happen since a voluntary debt default has never happened before. The good news is that Delaware is in better fiscal shape than many states so the effects may not be as dramatic.
So, what distinguished economist did Livengood find to dispute the bad consequences of debt default. Oh look, it’s failed Congressional candidate distinguished economist Glen Urquhart:
“Those are great DNC talking points, but they’re just not the truth,” said Urquhart, a businessman from Rehoboth Beach. “The United States is still the safest place to invest. Nothing is going to happen.”
Urquhart suggested the U.S. Treasury sell bonds on the proceeds of the Social Security Trust Fund to get by until a resolution can be reached on the debt ceiling.
“The fundamental issue here is that Obama wants more income redistribution,” Urquhart said. “That’s what he’s holding us hostage for. It’s blackmail.”
What was Christine O’Donnell not available to comment? I guess Urquhart is considered an expert because he nattered a lot about “debt slavery” and unlike COD, he has held a job for many years.
I want to send all my healing thoughts to Chad Livengood. Fairnbalanced-itis is debilitating, but I think it’s curable.
Tags: Chad Livengood, Debt Ceiling, News Journal, So-Called Liberal Media
Who else are you going to get who is dumb enough to think “Nothing is going to happen?”
The funny thing is, Urquhart beat Michele Rollins, who as a (former) bank board member would have been slightly qualified to comment, and would likely have had a very different viewpoint about the consequences of default.
Reporters don’t make those decision, UI. Editors do.
But still.
And I genuinely do not get the *we don’t know* stance. Even if you buy the prevailing metaphor that the government should be run like your household is, there are clear and abiding consequences to facing the day when the money you take in no longer covers your obligations. And neither borrowing or printing more money is an option.
For the people who have been treating US debt as a safe harbor, that harbor no longer looks as safe. Because now you don’t know if or when you’ll get your money back. And if you do get your money back, your faith in the US political process to honor its obligations gets dented pretty quickly. Meaning that the next time you want to float some debt instruments, it will cost you more. And that is just for a disruption of a couple of days.
And yet we get a bunch of people actually responsible for governing talking about the consequences of default in some detail vs. a Sussex teajadi not responsible for anything other than the talking points of the day. Very lazy, NJ.
I’ve spent a long time in the news business. My guess is that the editor told Livengood to get someone from the other side of the aisle since the debt discussion has become so partisan. The editor might have suggested Urquhart if he was looking for someone to say something memorable. How raising the debt ceiling has anything to do with income redistribution is beyond me.
Perhaps Charlie Copeland was on another call.
Reporters follow their news editors demands and no doubt the editors demanded an alternative view.
Look at the wingnut trash the NJ allows on their editorial pages. We have a lot of crazy in DE whose thirst must be quenched if news type is to be sold.