Balance those concerns against the huge, huge threat we face longterm of monetizing the debt and all of where we are headed, which is really unknown territory for us. Unfortunately, it is not unknown territory for many other nations. If we do not pass this, we are taking a gamble that we can be the first Nation in history to have that kind of debt and not monetize the debt. In terms of this whole thing just being gimmicks, I do not think my friend--and I respect him a great deal--Senator Byrd would be fighting this so hard if he felt it were just a gimmick, and I do not think others would. It has teeth and it should have teeth. In terms of the court situation and the possible court involvement, first, in general, the States restrictions have--there are loopholes out there. But the leading scholar in this field, a faculty member at the Cardozo School of Law in New York testified before us last week, and he said that despite the loopholes, there is no question that this is a restraint on State government, a restraint that we do not have in the Federal Government.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses concerns about debt monetization and the implications of proposed legislation.
Share
More from Sen. Paul Simon
You face a much harsher judge than this Committee, and that is the judgment of history, and that judgment is likely to revolve around the question, did you restrict freedom or did you expand it.
first, two points made by my friend--and he is my friend--from Nevada, Senator Reid, on the language of our amendment. We have gone over this carefully in all kinds of hearings. The only language change is the Danforth language on judicial…
It ought to be a very rare thing. We can't just be an international Rambo wandering around doing whatever we want regardless of international law.
You face a much harsher judge . . . than this committee and that is the judgment of history.





