Perhaps it is only appropriate that Republican lawmakers, having held the economy hostage by threatening to let the United States default on its obligations if they did not get their way, ended up with a bag filled with funny-money reductions.

In return for fuzzy, dubious long-term budget cuts, enough Republican lawmakers finally relented to allow the boosting of the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion.

The deficit debate dominated the headlines for weeks, but now the 24-hour news machines have turned to the latest crisis, the crumbling stock market and its implications for the economy. The two issues are not unrelated. The poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, and its inability to produce an honest solution to the long-term deficit challenge, gave the markets no reason for confidence.

With each passing day it becomes more obvious that the Budget Control Act of 2011 is not only a sham but bad policy. It does not trim spending growth, but only slows it. And it does not deal honestly with the major deficit drivers - unsustainable growth in entitlement programs and a broken tax system.

Instead it contains relatively modest cuts and caps in discretionary spending, $72 billion over the next two years. But even at that level it will trim 0.2 percent from domestic economic growth next year, according to IHS Global Insight. That might seem insignificant, but not when one considers the state of the U.S. economy.

Arguably Congress should be spending money now, on infrastructure investment, public works programs and job training, to goose the economy, while pushing for reforms to bend the deficit curve over the long haul. But forget about such logic in the current political climate.

All told the deal commits to $917 billion in spending caps over 10 years, but with the bulk coming magically in the last eight years. That plan ignores the reality that the decisions of one Congress cannot bind future congresses, a constitutional inconvenience authenticated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

More contrived is the creation of the Super Committee, which will be charged with coming up with another $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions. Congressional leaders from both parties will appoint six members. The committee that is supposed to find a compromise appears instead constructed for more stalemate.

Republican leaders will almost certainly appoint only disciples of their no-tax-increase dogma. That doctrine, of course, has its roots in the results of the 2010 November election that gave the GOP control of the House, thanks in significant part to the rise of the tea party movement. The tea partiers certainly deserve credit for giving increased attention to runaway deficit spending. But the movement, and its devotees in the House, suffer from a disconnect with reality in their stance that the deficit crisis can be addressed without revenue increases. The movement labels as a heretic any lawmaker who would suggest even closing a tax loophole.

Conversely, Democratic leaders are sure to appoint lawmakers devoted to protecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In truth these programs cannot remain solvent without some reforms, but it?s more politically advantageous for Democrats to cast themselves as "for" these programs and Republicans as "against" them.

The likely outcome of partisan appointments is super deadlock on the Super Committee.

The theoretical incentive for compromise is a provision calling for $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts if the Super Committee does not provide a compromise plan, or if it does and Congress rejects it. Those cuts would come equally from defense and non-defense programs, while protecting Social Security and Medicaid.

What will more likely happen is future modifications undertaken by later congresses unwilling to accept the mandated cuts.

What should happen is that Congress does its job and, using the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform as a blueprint, finds about $4 trillion in long-term, genuine deficit reductions with cuts, reforms and a boost in tax revenues. But that apparently makes too much sense and would score too few political points for the respective parties.

So rather than governing, expect more gimmickry, gridlock and posturing to come.