Unfortunately in this case the attack was accurate. The article starts with a correct but not novel explanation of dumb political games, then veers abruptly into libertarian cheerleading. The author mentions things like "too big to fail" but ignores the fact that companies got this way through deregulation in the first place. All in all, a disappointingly shallow argument.
The argument against 'too big to fail' presumes that such a thing doesn't exist. I.e., it isn't government's role to prop up corporations, regardless of the effect their failure _might_ have on the economy. In that view, deregulation, even if it encourages companies to become large, isn't a 'problem', so there isn't any inconsistency.
