What balancing the budget immediately with no tax hikes would mean

While I don't share the author's point of view, this rundown is actually very useful. He seems to be under a misapprehension, though: Obama can't actually cut spending on his own. He doesn't have an ex post facto line item veto. What he can do is decide who is going to get stiffed when there isn't enough money to go around. Actually balancing the budget would require congress, so we would still be in a state of default (though not sovereign debt default, unless Obama chooses not to pay the interest on accumulated debt) if the debt ceiling isn't raised in the next three weeks.

His workup does show, though, why balancing the budget with no new revenue is politically impossible at the moment. His own proposal is absurd, and the Republicans would find it unacceptable because of the massive defense cuts. But abolishing all social spending (including food stamps and all other nutritional assistance)? Good grief. Also his abolition of the Department of Education was predicated on the notion that this was a "gift" from Jimmy Carter we can do without. Actually, believe it or not, the United States government spent money on education before Jimmy Carter. But it was handled by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Jimmy merely spun Education out into its own department (and greatly increased the spending levels).