I am a political scientist, so I hope you excuse my momentary detour from kvetching about the California State University system and indulge a detour into the world of politics.

As the country heads toward a government shutdown many commentators, especially on the political right, have pulled out their “simple solutions” for avoiding what amounts to default. What concerns me is the lack of understanding of how our constitutional system actually works (much less the nuts and bolts of government) that creates misunderstanding through misinformation.

One argument goes: On the day after d-day (default day) the government will have $74 billion dollars in the bank, enough to pay interest on the debt (thereby avoiding strict default), pay the active military, and veterans’ benefits. Thus, not raising the debt ceiling is not a problem.

Well it is a problem. One thing that these folks do not understand is that the president does not have the authority to decide which bills will be paid and which will not. The executive branch only has the authority to pay the bills as they come in. It is a bit like your checking account. If funds are getting low the bank does not make a distinction between reimbursing the check made out to Starbucks or the check written for your mortgage. If the Starbucks check comes in first and you do not have the money to cover the mortgage payment the bank does not reimburse that check. Like the bank, the executive branch does not have the authority to pick and choose who to pay.

President Obama could choose to take on this role of the picker-and-chooser-in-chief, but it would take him beyond his constitutional authority (an impeachable offense), and it just might piss some people off. President Obama would likely choose to pay for those programs that he favors over those he does not. Why, oh why would the right wing—which hates Obama with an unprecedented fervor—want to grant their nemesis this much power?

A second “simple solution” is offered up in today’s Cleveland Plain Dealer by editorial page writer Kevin O’Brien. Let’s start, he argues, by simply getting rid of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, and Labor. His solution? “Leave the debt ceiling where it is. Start by saving $500 billion a year by lopping off these four departments.”

Again we see a basic misunderstanding of how our system works. Simply “lopping off these four departments” would take an act of Congress. If the Congress cannot agree on raising the debt ceiling, how are they going to agree on this in the next few days?

But let’s get more to his point, that these departments cost money and do nothing to promote the common good. Take for instance the Agriculture Department, which he accuses of being an instrument for directing “subsidies and corporate welfare.” So let’s get rid of it. And let’s get rid of inspections of meat production facilities, for instance. Everyone knows that we do not need to inspect how our meat is produced! These facilities are clean and they voluntarily adhere to standards of production (which will go away when we get rid of the Ag Department) that ensure a clean food supply chain with minimal outbreaks of food borne illness that costs billions of dollars in health care and lost wages every year. Hell, why did we ever create the Ag Department?! Clean food has never been a problem in the US!

It is OK for people to fool themselves about the gravity of our current problem. But it is not OK for people who shape public opinion to offer Pollyannaish assessments and foolish panaceas composed of one part ignorance and one part snake oil.