Debt Limit Aftereffects

I usually find the New York Times editorials too opinionated, simplistic and lecturing, even when I happen to agree with them, which is often. The same is true of The Economist's "Leaders". It may be that an editorial (as its very close cousin, the blog post) should, by definition, be this way. It is also true that, compared to the Wall Street Journal editorials, those of the New York Times are music to one's ears, no matter what they say.

At any rate, the most recent NYT editorial is not one of those irritating ones:

It has long been clear that the federal debt limit is far too dangerous and unstable for lawmakers to use as a political weapon. Allowing that to happen in the last few traumatic weeks created an artificial national crisis that put the economy and the savings of Americans at risk and helped produce a loss of confidence that lingered as a cause of Thursday’s stock-market plunge. [...]

As this page said in 1961 — not remotely for the first time or the last — the “debt limit does not limit the debt.” It’s an illusion of a law, instituted in World War I, to persuade gullible taxpayers that Congress is exercising responsible oversight over borrowing. Congress already controls spending and taxation, and if it wants a smaller debt it can cut spending or raise taxes at will. To allow the deficit to rise, and then refuse to pay for it months later, is the definition of financial irresponsibility.

And to those who think the whole debt limit playing-with-fire episode has nothing to do with yesterday's 500+ points Dow Jones thud, the overall nastiness of all sorts of global markets and the still ongoing monster risk-off trade.... Seriously?