Thanks for the link. I see your point about budget shortfalls exceeding the funds provided by ARRA.
But now I'm curious why you have taken such a cynical tone in your earlier post, when the article you linked to was fairly balanced, and provided what is IMO a fair assessment of next steps. The inevitable consequences are:
A. Cut spending
B. Raise taxes
C. More federal stimulus
I agree with the argument the article made against cutting spending when it comes to critical component to people's livelihoods - i.e. unemployment, state services, medical care, etc.
I continue to believe that taxes for the wealthy, or on specific products can be used. The argument from the article suggested that taxes cause people to stop spending, but I think that's more of a middle class argument, where small decreases in take-home pay come directly from discretionary spending. But for the wealthy class, I think they can afford much higher taxes and still afford to spend money and live lavish lifestyles.
Other good tax proposals include a legalized marijuana tax, a soft drink or junk food tax, and additional luxury taxes. Obviously, the special interests fight hard against these, but I think when it comes down to cutting critical funds, or imposing more taxes, you'll see the tension becomes a good forcing function to higher taxes.
As a last resort, when tax proposals are defeated, and a state has to appeal for federal funding, then Congress can look at that, including the idea of giving out federal loans to states. I don't think any spending bills come easily, especially in this environment - and certainly not by rubber stamp, as you suggested in a previous post.
That, I think, is the difference of why I choose to vet out this discussion - not because we necessarily disagree on everything, but that I think the situation is unique and does not merit the cynical attitude I have noticed you taking in previous posts.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
