Signs on storefronts were fairly common in the Northeast:  “No Irish Need Apply.”

After the Irish, came large waves of Italians at the tail end of the 19^th Century.  Ghettoes with the moniker Little Italy sprung up  in most major cities, as America struggled to assimilate the hundreds of thousands of poorly-educated migrants, many of whom spoke little English.  They were segregated and struggled to find jobs.

When Greeks immigrated to America in the early 20^th century, they faced intense discrimination.  In some areas, Greek stores were burned out and in the South, Greeks were relegated to non-white status.

Discrimination against the Jews was even worse.  Anti-semitism was common and in some cases, was government policy.

In all cases, these various group assimilated into America’s complex tapestry.  They are now officially classified as “white” by the census.

I was thinking about assimilation and separatism in the context of the news stories that white people now make up only half of the babies in this country.

My question is:  When do white Hispanics become just plain vanilla white, like the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks and the Jews?

And I guess the answer is:  It depends.

It depends on how the government chooses to classify them, if the government chooses to continue to incentivize racial separatism, and of course, what Hispanics themselves decide what they want.

The Irish, Italians, Greeks and Jews had a greater incentive to assimilate and lose their racial distinctiveness because that was their avenue to greater prosperity.  There wasn’t special set-asides for the Irish to get a job (unless of course, you were a cop or a fireman).  There wasn’t official policies to help Italians or Jews get into elite schools.  There wasn’t affirmative action back in the early 1900’s.

And of course, there are those policies today.   We see with the Senate campaign in Massachusetts that such incentives come with political risk.  Elizabeth Warren, the liberal candidate, allegedly made  use of affirmative action set-asides when she claimed on several forms that she was part Native American, a designation that gave her key advantages in getting hired.

Incentives for racial separation have a profound impact in who gets into college, who gets a job, who gets hired.  In the old days, you tried to blend in.  These days, you try to trumpet your minority status.  Being a minority can be good for your career.

A whole movement has sprung up to fight for those incentives.  It is called the called the Person of Color movement.  According to Wikipedia,  “Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used, primarily only in the United States, to describe all people who are not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation. Style guides for writing from American Heritage,] the Stanford Graduate School of Business Mount Holyoke College, recommend the term over these alternatives. It may also be used with other collective categories of people such as students of color, men of color and women of color.’”

By banding together, persons of color can be a majority in the country, and they can dictate the terms of the debate.  They can pass more affirmative action laws, they can dictate specific percentages for each college class, they can show the once-majority who is really the problem.

The problem with this construct, of course, is the inherent contradictions within the person of color coalition.  Asian-Americans are the fastest growing classification, but they face different challenges than African-Americans.  Indeed, many Asian Americans are over-represented in many university systems, because they do so well on standardized tests.  Affirmative action policies in college admission actually hurt Asian-American students because if there is a quota system for each ethnic group, well, then some Asians are going to have to go somewhere else.

Hispanics make up another contradiction.  First, not all Hispanics are alike.  Mexicans and Cubans think differently, for example.  And there is a great difference in ethnic perceptions.  Mexicans who have been here for generations think much differently than newly arrived Salvadorans.

Politically speaking, one party has a vested interest in keeping racial separation incentives in place and another party has vested interest in tearing them down.

For Democrats, who fancy themselves as the “persons of color” party, racial and class resentment is a key feature of their political philosophy.  They must continually play up racial animosities to feed the political base.  They see more government subsidies, more government incentive programs and more government power as the only solution to what ails modern society.  They see racial set-asides as a tool to keep minorities voting for them, and they see racial set-asides as the only solution to advancing in society.

Republicans see racial set-asides as an affront to the idea of a color-blind society and they see government not as a solver of problems, but creator of more problems.  But Republicans have a huge blind spot when it comes to minorities.  All too often, they see minority groups as a challenge to their own power.

If Republicans are to remain significant political force in this country, they have to do two things in conjunction.  First, they have to tear down the racial-separatism government incentive state.  Second, they have to come up with a real alternative in the private sector that brings wealth and prosperity to all parts of our society.

Only by coming up with strategies to make all ethnic groups prosperous can the Republicans combat the racial separatist coalition.  Only by denouncing in the most vehement terms racism and race baiting, can the Republicans hope to make a dent in the person of color coalition.  Only by expanding the middle class can the Republicans hope to expand their own political fortunes.

            Perhaps the first big celebrity trial that I remember was O.J. Simpson’s.

Talk about a big deal.  It combined the glamour of Hollywood and NFL, it had huge legal stars like Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro, and it had the always fun subcontext of America’s always-set-on-boil cauldron of race relations.

And of course, there was a real reason for the trial.  O.J. killed his wife (or allegedly killed his wife, if you want to be technical about it).

These days, celebrity trials are dime a dozen.  And while many of them still have many of the elements of the O.J. trial – big names, sex, sports or politics, scandal, etc – they lack the most important central element:  A real crime.

The John Edwards trial is a case in point.

Edwards is a bad dude.  He cheated on his wife while she was dying of cancer (although by most accounts, his wife verbally abused the poor guy publicly and quite often, when she wasn’t verbally abusing his staff – in other words, she was no picnic).

Edwards took a lot of money from a very wealthy benefactor and used that money to help house his girlfriend and their new baby (and a staffer and his wife, for cover-up purposes).

It all sounds so slimy and gross and shifty.  And we are all lucky that John Edwards didn’t get elected President.  But it is probably not illegal.  As it turned out, the staffer who got the money actually had the foresight to pay taxes on it, which was probably the only legal trouble that could have arisen.

The only possible other legal problem Edwards might have was a violation of FEC law, but the FEC already ruled that is was probably legal.  My bigger point here is:  Who cares?  Edwards has forever ruined his reputation, and he is done by most political standards.

Sure, he might get a talk show someday (he probably would be better than Eliot Spitzer), but beyond that, he is no threat to society.  So, why can’t we stop dragging him through the mud and move on.

The same goes with Roger Clemens (and for that matter, Barry Bonds).   Neither Clemens or Bonds wanted to fess up about using steroids.

We all think they did, but who cares?

Why does the Justice Department have to waste millions of dollars going after two big baseball stars for possibly using the kind of steroids that were common-place in Major Leagues at the time?

Like Edwards, Clemens and Bonds have had their credibility and their reputation destroyed.  Isn’t that enough?  Doesn’t our legal system have better things to do with our hard-earned tax dollars?

Everybody loves a good celebrity trial, because it is fun to watch.

But we don’t have the money to waste on trials that have no real point.

Clemens, Bond and Edwards didn’t steal anything.  They didn’t deal drugs.  They didn’t rape anybody or murder anybody.  They are not existential threats to society.

I sure wish our Justice system would focus on the real criminals.

They would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.   They would allow all of the tax extenders to run out.  They would allow the defense sequester to kick in.  They would let all of the other spending cuts, as envisioned by the budget agreement from last year, go into effect.    And they wouldn’t increase the debt limit, making the government break contracts and not off its many creditors.

If all of that happened, we would make tremendous progress towards cutting our national debt.  It would amount to the largest tax increase and one of the largest spending cuts in our national history.

Of course, the end result would also be an economic catastrophe.  Our economy would collapse in a recession or a depression.  The jobless rate would double.  Economic output would decline.   It would be one hell of a mess.

No serious politician would want to see this happen to our country or to the world economy.

But, outside the House Republicans, who actually passed a reconciliation bill last week that came up with an alternative to the deep spending cuts, a vote that garnered little notice outside the Halls of Congress, the political class is doing nothing about this coming financial train wreck.

Yesterday, John Snow, the former Treasury Secretary, rang the alarm bells in pages of the Wall Street Journal, about the impending doom that will come with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.   But outside that one lonely voice, nobody in the media has made much of it.

The conventional wisdom is that Congress and the President will somehow reach agreement on all of these items once the election is done.  You see, Mr. Obama can’t really be bothered with actually governing.  He has to raise money with the likes of George Clooney and countless others like him, because Wall Street just isn’t giving as much as they used to.  And raising money takes times and energy.

Indeed,  President  Obama has already done more fundraisers at this moment in his tenure than any other President in history did in all four years  of their first term.  If it seems like the campaign has started pretty early, that is because that is all the President has been doing.

But what if Mr. Obama loses his election, and in demonstration of his unhappiness with his loss, he decided that he won’t sign anything?  Or what if John Boehner loses his majority, and suddenly he can’t get the votes to pass anything?  Or what if the Senate ends up in tie, and neither Senators Reid or McConnell can figure out who has the power of the gavel.

All of these scenarios are possible.  And all could lead to a truly lame, lame-duck.

Lame duck sessions of Congress are vestige of the old days, when transportation delays made it hard for the members of Congress to gather in a timely fashion after an election.   Now, they are used as an excuse to avoid the wrath of the voters.

But the President and the Congress shouldn’t wait until it is too late.

The voters hate the political class not because they make the tough decisions, but because they all too often cynically try to avoid them.  Mr. Obama is the worst offender.  He knows that the economy can’t sustain the jolt to the system of systemic inaction on some of the pending business facing the Federal government.

Yet, instead of convening Congressional leaders and hammering out deals, he cavorts with George Clooney and campaigns to get himself reelected.   The President shouldn’t wait for the Lame Duck to act.  The end result could be Lameggedon.

            Every once in a while, you run across a relationship status on Facebook that accurately sums up this current Presidential race:  It’s complicated.

Simplifying the complicated is the essence of modern day political campaigning.

At its heart, the act of voting for most is a pretty simple binary choice.  Actually, form most voters, it is even more simple.  They vote the party line, no matter what.

Indeed, Presidential voting is much like a long baseball season.  Every team in the major leagues is going to win 60 games and lose 60 games.  What happens in those other 42 games is what separates the winners from the losers.

Both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are going to end up with 45% of the vote.  What happens with the other ten percent is the key to deciding the election.

And for that 10% of the voting public that actually decides most Presidential elections, the factors that decide how they are going to vote are not at all necessarily easy to understand.

Pundits like to say it is all about the economy, that most votes vote their pocket book.  And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that is a strong factor.

But this economy is not so easy to define.  Some parts of America are going to through a deep recession/depression.  But some other areas are growing like gang-busters.   The irony is that the parts of the country that have the strongest economic growth are the most likely to vote against President Obama.  Other states that are economic basket cases, such as California and Illinois, are reliably blue states.

Beyond the economy, voters cast their ballots on a variety of the factors.  Does the candidate share my values (be they liberal or conservative)?  Do they share my religious outlook?  This is the second election where race is a significant factor.  Class identity plays a role.

But all of these questions have complications of their own.  Neither Obama nor Romney come from mainstream religious backgrounds.  Mormonism is still quite controversial in more than few parts of the country.   Obama cuts his religious teeth in a black church with a fiery preacher who expressed a black separatist philosophy.

Obama class-war rhetoric has failed to make much of a positive impression on the white working class that it is supposed to impress.   Romney’s pro-growth economic philosophy doesn’t exactly stir the souls of the upper crust that theoretically is supposed to benefit from it.

Other intangibles factor in.   Likability is always cited as a reason people vote for a candidate.  Is this person somebody I would like to have a beer with?   Obama wins this contest, according to the polls, plus Romney doesn’t drink.  But did really matter in 1968, when Hubert Humphrey was running against Richard Nixon?

Perhaps the most important intangible comes with the whole idea of leadership.   Does the candidate inspire us with both his words and his actions?  Can he make the tough decisions?  And perhaps most importantly, can he break through all of the complexities that face the office of the President, and communicate simply the stakes for the American people.

President Obama is making much of his decision to give the go-ahead in mission to kill Osama Bin Laden.  But that was a binary choice.  Either go or no go.  On the more complicated issues, like reviving our economy, tackling our crippling deficits, advancing real health care reform or coming up with plan to deal with out of control entitlements, the President’s leadership has been less clear.

He has taken the complicated and made it ever more complicated.

Mr. Obama is a smart guy and he obviously spends a lot of time thinking big thoughts.  But his inability to make the complicated simple may lead to his downfall this November.

            This is why I don’t run for President.

I can only wonder in horror at what kind of stuff they would dig up about me when I was in my early to late teens.  I wasn’t the worst kid in the world, but I had my moments.  Let me say, for the record, that if I offended you or bullied you or made fun of you or in other way hurt you when I was an insensitive teen-ager, I am sorry.

That is basically what Mitt Romney did yesterday.

Some of his chums from prep school remembered a nasty prank that Mitt Romney pulled about 50 years ago, and of course, that prank is now part of a bigger narrative about who the Republican nominee is today.

He is Mean Mitt, who picked on closeted gay students in his early years and then fired people when he got the chance to be a corporate CEO.  That is how the Democrats are going to try to play it.

I think it is all hogwash.

Mitt Romney might have been a privileged kid at a fancy school, but he also met his wife when he was in high school.  And by accounts, Romney has been a pragmatic, loyal, smart, and compassionate person ever since that point.

If the Democrats want to make this a story of Mean Mitt, I would turn it into a love story, where Romney learns how to be a man, a husband, a leader in his church, a father, and a successful businessman, all because he fell in love with a beautiful woman who would become his wife.

In other words, Mitt Romney grew up.

We all go through journeys in our lives. Some of those journeys are depressingly short and some are amazingly long.

Some people never change.  They learn all of what they are going to learn in high school, and they hang out at the same places and do the same things that they did their whole lives.

Other people evolve.  They travel the world.  They encounter live-changing crises.  They go through spiritual transformations.  They find out who they truly are.  Or they become somebody completely new.

We are learning much about the early lives of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, thanks to the Washington Post.  Barry Obama, the guy who hung out with foreign exchange students and dated an Australian girl when he lived in New York, is quite different from the Barack Obama who eventually married Michele and became a politician.

Mitt Romney has changed too.  He might have been spoiled child of privilege who once played a nasty prank on a strange looking kid in prep school.  But he is now a committed father, successful businessman and loyal husband.  And possibly the next President of the United States.

            While the news media is completely focused on the President Obama’s evolving position on gay marriage (question:  what is the difference between evolving and a flip flop), House Republican leaders have been hitting their stride.

Tensions between the Speaker’s office and the Leader’s office haven’t completely dissipated (and given the historic nature of those two offices, they never really will), Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor have developed an effective working relationship that is helping the House get some serious victories.

Today, House Republicans will cut more than $300 billion out of current spending as part of a reconciliation process aimed at replacing deep and dangerous reductions in military spending with more palatable reductions in mandatory programs.

The package is expected to easily pass the House without much more than a whimper from the Democratic minority.  Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the spending cut package comes with some necessary reforms to the food stamp program.  But as John Boehner pointed out last week, everybody who is on food stamps today will continue to be on food stamps (unless by some miracle they get a job—which is hard in this Obama economy) the day after these reforms are implemented, if that day ever comes.

Republicans say that their bill bill replaces automatic military cuts that the  Obama administration admits would “hollow out” our armed forces.   And a coalition of 31 organizations representing more than 5.5 million veterans sent a letter to Congress, begging it to stop the defense sequester, saying it would be “catastrophic” for the economy and for our national defense.  The reconciliation bill accomplishes that goal.

Some budget hawks disagree that the automatic sequester would necessarily be devastating to the Pentagon’s ability to defend America, but there is absolutely no doubt that such cuts would kill jobs in politically important states.

The Republicans have had a series of other  triumphs that they should make them proud.

They passed a politically charged budget on time and are now proceeding apace to get their Appropriations bills passed and sent to the Senate.   This work is the life-blood of the Congress.

They forced the Senate to take up and pass Eric Cantor’s Jobs Act, legislation that helps venture capital firms invest in small businesses.  The President signed the bill into law, over the objections of some of his allies.

The House was also able to get the Export Import Bank reauthorized, over the objections of some Tea Party members.  While conservatives didn’t particularly love the bill, it was important for several big domestic manufacturers, and it’s reauthorization too will help create jobs.

Congressional Republicans hope that the rockiness that greeted them last year on too many bills has finally led way to a smoother path to legislative (and electoral) success.  They seem to be hitting their stride, just at the right time.

But that is not how the media played it.  For them, this issue is far bigger than Social Security Reform, Medicare Reform, the Debt Limit, the largest tax increase in history (which is just around the corner) and the shocking lack of leadership from this President on a host of other issues.

What position you take on this issue largely comes down to three big factors:  Where you live, how often you go to church, and if you have friends or family members who are gay.

If you live in a big city like Washington D.C. or New York City, you are going to have one position on gay marriage.  If you live in rural America or the suburbs, most likely you will have another position on gay marriage, unless you have a family member or close friend who happens to be gay.

Presumably, the President had already wrapped up the votes in most of the big cities and lost the votes of folks in rural America.  So for him, it is all a matter of how it plays out in the suburbs.

As I have written before, the suburbs have been changing over the last five years.  They are more culturally and racially diverse than they were in their hey day, and they are under considerable financial strain, with the collapse of the housing bubble.

But suburban America is far more religious than Big City America, and it is really unclear if this is a political winner for the President or a political loser.  When voters have a chance to express their positions privately on the issue of gay marriage in the voting booth, usually they give it a big thumbs down.  The American people are still not necessarily comfortable with the whole idea.

However, it has become more and more uncomfortable for politicians to take that position publicly.  This is especially true in Washington D.C., where Congressman and Senators have shied away from the issue much more than they did 10 years ago.   A decade ago, gay bashing was fashionable.  These days, it is not only uncouth, it is conduct unbecoming of a politician.

The gay lobby is not nearly as powerful as the quiet persuasion of prominent and wealthy gay donors, fundraisers and political strategists.  And for politicians who rely on these folks to win their campaigns, it has become harder and harder to take tough stands against issues like gay marriage.

The religious community is not as shy as the political class.  If there is one issue that Southern Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, African Methodists and conservative Jews all agree on, it is that gay marriage is an affront to God.  They will continue to preach from the pulpit that gay marriage should be stopped in its tracks, and some of their most reliable attendees will vote on the issue.

It is not altogether clear how this plays out in the ballot box.  With so many more important issues facing America, like persistent unemployment and wars that seem to never end, I doubt that the President’s announcement will be at the top of the list of voter concerns.   But you never know.

            In a statement regarding his loss to Richard Mourdock last night, Richard Lugar said, “If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator.  But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington.  He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate.”

Wise words from a man who spent the last 36 years in the United States Senate.  Wise, but completely irrelevant in a primary election, where the biggest bloc of voters are not that interested in compromise.

If Mr. Mourdock had one theme from his campaign it was his hostility to compromise.  To someone who has spent decades in the Senate, that kind of language is politically naïve and self-serving, hence Mr. Lugar’s statement last night.

But to the voters out there who see unholy compromises in every deal coming from Washington, Mourdock’s rhetoric was music to their ears.

Of course, a democracy is predicated on compromise.  Our form of representative government is particularly reliant on compromise.  Without the ability to cut deals, nothing happens in Washington.  And perhaps, to many voters these days, gridlock is a far better result than legislative progress.

Many newly elected freshmen have come into the Senate refusing to compromise their principles.  Tom Coburn is perhaps the finest example of a fire-eating conservative who has become a leader in the Senate, not by compromising his principles, but by skillfully advancing his principles to achieve a greater good for the country.

Senator Lugar has seen his fair share of fire-eaters come and go in the Upper Chamber.  He has seen those who were able to adapt to the changing times and survive to fight another day for their constituents, Senators like Strom Thurmond and John McCain.

And he has seen others who toil in obscurity, fight for their principles and lose the next election.

When you have served in the Senate for 36 years, you see all kinds come and go.

My guess is that Richard Lugar didn’t want to compromise his principles to win another election.  He didn’t want take positions that he knew wouldn’t work in the real world of legislating.  He didn’t want to prostrate himself in front of his Indiana constituents begging them to vote for him for one more term.   He simply lost interest in playing the game.

The man is 80 years old and he is earned the right to make that decision.  But in politics, nobody is entitled to a seat in the Senate.  You have to play the game, and part of that game is telling the voters what they want to hear.  And if they want to hear that you won’t compromise, that is exactly what you have to say.

Lugar wouldn’t compromise on his position on the necessity to compromise, and in many ways, that spelled the doom to his career.

            Willie Sutton was a wise man.  When asked why he robbed banks, he reportedly said:  “That’s where the money is.”

The Romney campaign would be well served to take that advice to heart in the context of this coming election.

He should stick to the economy because that is where the votes are.

Mr. Romney has been straying off message too often into foreign policy.

His message when he has one tends to be ever more hawkish.  Let’s invade Iran.  Let’s beat up Putin.  Let’s hit the Chinese.  Let’s stay in Afghanistan.  Let’s attack the Palestinians.

Romney is beating his chest in an effort to seem more macho than President Obama, who is beating his chest for authorizing the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

It all seems a bit childish to me.

The American people, while they want to feel safe and secure, are tired of war.   They are glad that Bin Laden is dead, but I doubt very seriously if that will be the top issue when they enter the voting booth.

The number one issue for Mitt Romney is the economy.  And not surprisingly, that is where Mr. Romney has his biggest advantage against Mr. Obama.

Unlike the President, Mr. Romney has done more than theory when it comes to job creation.  His advantage on this key issue is obvious, it is substantial, and it is overwhelming.

So, why does the Romney campaign seem intent on changing the subject by talking about foreign policy?

The fact of the matter is only a few voters really care about foreign policy unless of course it has something to do with the economy.

Sure, they care about war and they are concerned about terrorism.

But on the war on terror, there is really very little difference between the approach taken by Mr. Obama and the approach taken by George Bush.  Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo and ending wiretaps and stopping torture, but as far as I can see, on most of those issues, there is more continuity than contrast.

Obama has kept most of the Bush policies in place and most of those policies will be kept in place by Romney when he gets to the White House.

So, what is the use of splitting hairs on policy Obama agrees with us on?

Why not focus instead on the truly dramatic differences between Obama and Romney?  Issues like stimulus spending and tax increases vs. pro-growth economic policies?

If Romney does want to venture into national defense, he should talk about it in the context of jobs.  Obama wants to keep in place a defense sequester that will not only make America less secure, but also kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Seems to me that is a pretty good issue for Romney to talk about.

My advice to the Romney campaign:  Stay away from the esoterics of foreign policy and stick to the main message of jobs and the economy.  That is where the votes are.

            Let’s not kid ourselves.  Austerity sucks.

It is not fun for anybody, especially politicians.  And more especially, European politicians.

It is not fun for the average voter, the average dieter, the average public employee, the average retiree and the average teen-ager.

Austerity is simply not great fun.

But sometimes, it is necessary.

According to the dictionary, austerity means sternness or severity of manner or attitude or extreme plainness and simplicity of style or appearance.

No wonder Mr. Sarkozy lost.

Wikipedia says this about austerity: “In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to reduce their deficit spending while sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to pay back creditors to reduce debt. “Austerity” was named the word of the year by Merriam-Webster in 2010.”

Austerity is not good politics.  Just ask Paul Krugman, who has been violently editorializing against the austerity policies of Angela Merkel and David Cameron for months (if not years).

In Krugman’s world view, priming the pump is the only option.  We must spend, spend, spend, deficits and national debt be damned.   Of course, if you are German, you have a different view of deficits out of control, because you know instinctively that out of control deficits lead to out of control inflation.

And that memory remains seared in the memories of many German bankers, who can think only of the financial troubles of the Weimar Republic which led to the rise of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.

The French and the Greeks, of course, don’t share the German love of fiscal austerity.   And they are sick and tired of being bossed around by a bunch of Prussians in Frankfurt and Berlin.  And that has led to some terrible strains within the European Union, strains that will inevitably lead to its collapse.

Some American politicians talk a good game of fiscal austerity, but they don’t really mean it.  They understand the politics.  Democrats are not going to cut spending.  Republicans are not going to raise taxes.

The good news for the U.S. is that we now have gridlock, which means that spending will not increase too much and neither will taxes.  We won’t have austerity, but we won’t have complete fiscal irresponsibility either.  We will largely have the status quo, which hopefully will help us limp along to a recovery somewhere down the line.

Make no mistake.  Austerity sucks.  It may be necessary on occasion, but austerity is a real buzz kill.