Which big-time blogger authored this piece in the Economist about the U.S.' budget deficit?
And as long as we're on the subject, check out this Paul Samuelson piece about future spending ahead:

Growing older will alert baby boomers to other inconvenient government policies that they may well try to alter. Consider:
• Nursing homes: By 2020 the 85-and-over population is expected to rise 54 percent to 6.8 million. Nursing home spending will explode. At present, the government covers only about 60 percent of the costs, mostly through Medicaid -- a program that requires that people become virtually impoverished before qualifying. Will there be a push for more generous coverage? Seems likely.
• Retirement savings: In 2001 workers had an estimated $2.3 trillion in individual retirement accounts and $2.1 trillion in 401(k)-type pensions. On withdrawal, most of this money faces ordinary tax rates. Will baby boomers clamor for preferential tax rates? Seems likely.
Who will pay for all this generosity? Our children, and their children. Under present policies, Social Security and Medicare spending will rise about 75 percent by 2030, projects the Congressional Budget Office. Our children will pay higher taxes, face higher budget deficits or receive fewer other government services. New retiree benefits or tax preferences increase the burden. There are questions of generational justice; high taxes or deficits may also hurt economic growth.
What we have needed -- and have not gotten -- is a rewriting of the generational compact, reflecting new social realities (longer life expectancies, more retirees, more private retirement savings). No president has addressed the issues candidly and risked the resulting unpopularity. We ought to be discussing how much people should pay for their retirement and what the public safety net should cover. But there's been no demand, especially among baby boomers, for candor.
The press amplifies the indifference. Somehow the mainstream press -- led by baby boomers -- regards new retirement benefits as "progressive" and dissociates them from higher future taxes or deficits. Coverage of the drug benefit has virtually ignored the issue of long-term costs. Experts at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute have strongly criticized the congressional plans. Their views have received scant attention. Press skepticism focuses on the stinginess of the new benefit. Reflecting journalistic conformity, The Post and the New York Times both ran front-page stories on June 26 in which retirees complained that the yet-to-be-passed drug benefit was inadequate.