1 simply denies that the opposing party should be able to represent itself in the democratic process but 2 is simply bizarre. No one is going to help their opponents pass their agenda on the basis that if they don't the other party will cause the economy to collapse. If that worked, the Soviet Union would have threatened to start a nuclear war anytime they wanted something and would expect the United States to back down.
The line of reasoning that validates such a tactic is just totally bizarre. Even if you can get some type of leverage over the other party you will never get enough concessions to justify the economic damage. Economic damage occurs in the present while entitlement spending cuts occur in the future. Even if the economic damage is minimal it seems quite a stretch to assume that statutory changes today are the only way to stop a future congress from overspending. This hypothetical future congress would be perfectly capable of cutting spending on its own.
That story is based on 2009 research: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548144?seq=2
Admitting that gerrymandering isn't the problem puts the solution further out of reach, unfortunately. Generational change is slow and painful.
But the article does make good points of self selected voting districts resulting from people moving in and out of communities.