When Republicans began arguing that any adjustment on the debt ceiling should be accompanied with a measure to help reduce spending, Claire McCaskill argued back that it was wrong to tie one issue to the other:
"Failing to raise the debt ceiling would cause a financial panic that would be devastating to the economy," said McCaskill's spokeswoman, Laura Myron. "She thinks it is profoundly irresponsible to play chicken with the debt limit vote, especially to pursue divisive social issues."
Only shortly later McCaskill found herself on the opposite side of the issue, as a signatory for a letter demanding that the debt-ceiling vote be tied to taxing oil companies.
The letter states that cutting industry tax breaks “must be part of any agreement you reach to raise the debt ceiling and lower the deficit.”
Let’s get this straight – it’s bad to add a clause to require reduced spending, but it’s perfectly okay to try to play legislative chicken for the sake of going after oil companies? Keep in mind that every single cent of profit that oil companies make is already matched with 6.85 cents in taxes.
It’s bad enough that Claire McCaskill flip flopped on the debt ceiling – but doing it to appeal to a radical populist agenda alongside Liberals like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer isn’t exactly in keeping with the people who actually elect her.
Comments