"Welcome to gridlocked America," writes Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. While the GOP has won a landslide victory in the House of Representatives, the Senate is still under Democrat control — with Harry Reid hanging on as majority leader. All of that means that it's going to be very difficult for any legislation to make it onto the U.S. books for the next two years, says Klein. "From the perspective of actually getting anything done in the next two years, there was perhaps no worse outcome." But is that necessarily a bad thing? The pundits weigh in:

Not doing much could be the best recipe: Gridlock "may not matter," says The Associated Press. In fact, it "may not be such a bad policy for the economy." Economists agree that "none of the ideas proposed in the campaign — by either party — would make a big dent" in unemployment figures or jolt consumer confidence. If the economy is left to recover on its own — without unnecessary government spending — it might happen more quickly.
"Stalemate in Congress might not be bad for economy"

We need legislation now more than ever: Burying our heads in the sand will not help fix our economy, says Mohamed A. El-Erian at The Washington Post. The problems we face stem from "years of over-leverage and misplaced confidence" in borrowing — not meddling government. The private sector cannot deal with the burden of our national debt. We need a healthy government to provide "long-term solutions" to housing reform, deficit restructuring, and pro-growth tax reforms.
"We've voted. What's next for the economy?"

It's almost like having a small government: The coming "two glorious years of hyper-partisan, acrimonious gridlock" are exactly what's required, says David Harsanyi at Reason. If you hadn't noticed, the electorate has angrily voted "against activist government," and this stalemate may be the one thing that can replicate the benefits of small government. Finally Washington will be in its "most moral and productive state." What a relief.
"A vote against government"