Well either have to raise taxes and or cut spending Damo. The cons used to support a balanced budget, what happened to them ?
Compassionate Conservatism happened to them, that's what!
Let me spend a moment on your first articulation, this is a common misconception of pinheads when it comes to economics. You fail to look at the dynamic nature of capitalism, and assume that all things remain constant. You see X number of people working, paying Y dollars in tax, and we are spending Z... With this formula, it's easy to think the options are to cut spending or raise taxes, to bring revenue and expense into check. However, the real world economics are ever-changing. People invest, stocks go up, people make more money and thus, pay more taxes in.
We've not "cut spending" on any governmental program that I am aware of. We have cut the amount of annual increase to programs, and this has been portrayed as a "cut" by the Democrats. Our government will spend more dollars this year than last, and you would have to go way back in our history to find a year this was not the case. Lowering the taxation rate, actually helps to stimulate growth and expansion of commerce, therefore, increasing the actual dollars in tax revenue. We run an annual deficit because we inherently spend more than we take in, but if we foster an environment of economic growth, rather than stagnation due to onerous taxation and regulation, the GDP is stronger, and more revenue comes in, so the deficit is decreased. It is theoretically possible, to grow the GDP and economy to a point where the deficit is eliminated, and windfalls will quickly pay off the national debt. This theory can not work if you raise taxes, or if you allow spending increases to out-pace the GDP growth. Bush hasn't raised taxes, but he has out-paced the GDP growth with his spending, Democrats would do both.