The author argues cogently that America's informal fiscal norms, rooted in the principles of Alexander Hamilton, have historically constrained fiscal policy and maintained economic stability, but these norms are now being eroded, which could change investor expectations about being repaid for government debt and have severe economic repercussions; however, while raising valid points about debt levels, the argument leans heavily on appeals to authority and tradition, as well as loaded language portraying the norms positively, without providing robust evidence to support all of these claims.

1. appeal to authority and appeal to tradition • The author invokes the name of Alexander Hamilton, without explaining his reasoning or evidence, in order to support certain conservative monetary and fiscal policies.

It's fair to say that the ethos of sound fiscal and monetary policy started with none other than Alexander Hamilton. In his January 1790 Report on Public Credit, Hamilton advocated for fully funded permanent public debt... Since then, America and most stable countries have developed norms guiding different kinds of policy behavior.

In the absence of an explanation of Hamilton's reasoning, this appeals to his authority alone, and to the tradition of using these policies historically.

2. loaded language The author approvingly quotes McArdle using some loaded language:

Debt-service costs are going through the roof... In fact, as Ms. McArdle notes, "President Biden isn't talking about fiscal sanity; he's talking about massive child-care subsidies" and about more student debt forgiveness.

The terms "going through the roof," "fiscal sanity" and "massive" are loaded with negative connotations, implying that Biden's policies are inherently irresponsible and excessive without providing objective evidence to support these claims.