The walk to a third election, it seems, has degraded most of the public into a sad mood. Nobody wants it. We are in the "blame game" phase, and there is general agreement that things are bad. So did this line-writer, on this stage, less than three months ago. And so is the proliferation of reports that report delays in budgets and projects, the signing of new agreements and more, all of which stems from our being in a continuing state of transition without a political powerless government.

But is it really that bad? Things may be less bad than we thought - and, perhaps, we should say, even better than a functioning government.

In recent years, until before the political crisis caused by Avigdor Lieberman a year ago, there was a functioning government. There was a finance minister, a defense minister, singing for social equality - everything worked well. And what worked? Wastes, masses of wastes. "Net Kahlon" distributed money as if there was no tomorrow - for young couples, parents, students, haredim, farmers, the disabled. Government offices celebrated. The education budget soared, as did the budgets of each of the government ministries. "The Fat Man" from Benjamin Netanyahu's public sector administration has grown fat. Signed wage agreements have gone beyond the salaries of civil servants far beyond the increase in average wages in the economy. But, as Margaret Thatcher said, socialism works well until you run out of other people's money.

The state deficit, which has grown to 3.7 percent of GDP, is a ticking economic bomb. The high deficit means that the state borrows too much money to finance its spending, loans that we will have to pay at high interest rates in the coming years. A smart functioning government could have dealt with the deficit through cuts Broad in the state budget and in its salaries: diet for the "fat man" so that the "lean man", the private sector can prosper more. But from the history of recent governments, and populist media rhetoric, it is highly doubtful whether such a move would have made a difference.

Every one of those supported by the state already has trouble seeing how it can thrive without it: whether it is an artist or architect, a teacher or an entrepreneur seeking subsidy, they are already accustomed to receiving the money from the country's safe pipeline. As the government collects more taxes and distributes more money, it increases the dependency of the public and degrades the civic initiative. Thus, a course of active cuts would probably be met with widespread resistance, and it would very likely not have been implemented. Instead, they might have raised taxes or redefined the deficit target, at the expense of future generations.

Therefore, there seems to be a positive side to government paralysis. The deficit is not sharply truncated, but does not increase. True, positive moves are inhibited, but negative ones are also frozen. Budget extensions at the public expense on hold. There is no denying that suffering has been inflicted on those who rely on government contracts, but any budget cut would have caused such suffering, and it is inevitable: in the end, those people will utilize their talents in the private and civilian markets, and we will all benefit. The government stalemate allows a forced diet, without any factor that can be blamed or pressured, and the result can be quite welcome: a shift from government to government, to civil society and the market, which - and not the government mechanism - is the basis for a vibrant and healthy society.