The Confusatory

The Economist v. The Budget

This week’s Economist has a four-piece discussion of the United States’ budgetary woes:

There’s a detailed piece about the Congressional supercommittee’s utter failure to effect any real reform, even with a procedural layup unlikely to be seen again for years (no amendments and no filibusters allowed, and yet, no deal emerged which took advantage of this).

There’s a look at the long-term issues with America’s fiscal policy, which stem mostly from an inability to fix an issue for good, and a tendency to instead make decisions-of-the-week which pay only lip service to the idea of structural budgetary changes.

The defense budget may yet come under the knife, which, while the idea of such is beginning to find traction with some Republicans in the presidential running, was never the intention:

The law was a pistol Congress pointed at its own head in order to frighten itself into cutting the deficit… In the event Congress failed to scare itself enough, which means that it reached no agreement… the pistol might go off after all.

And finally, the lovely state of California (where this writer currently hails from) is in the throes of a procedural magic show to try and fix what ails it, politically:

… the state legislature does not [currently] work, both because ballot initiatives have pre-empted it and because the extremists on right and left can block, but not agree on, any reform of consequence.

And to think, all this was read this morning over one (very good) cup of coffee. (It would be prudent to eat something as well, now that I mention it. But prudence is the (missing) point of these discussions, so maybe it’s best that I not.)