In my line of work, we had a third option - reduce cost of delivery. I think it exists in government too. I'm not simply talking about wasteful spending, I'm talking to structural overhauls in the way we do business. Using technological advances in Minnesota, we've found ways to change and enhance our offerings to allow greater service at a lower cost. Implementation of kiosk systems, more electronic transactions, etc across the board, installing open source software solutions, bidding out more gov't services to competive public industry w/ tight gov't oversight, etc.

If working in that direction couldn't produce results, then personally I favor cuts before tax increases; but i don't think that it and taxes are the only two options on the table. Business and local / state governments have been finding ways to restructure, change practices and implement better technology to drive down cost of operation, and it has worked there. Minnesota is a good example of a state that has done a lot of restructuring to reign in a budget defecit without dramatic service cuts and no increases in taxes.

My short answer: yes, yes, & no, respectively. Deficit spending has produced a debt of nearly seven TRILLION and climbing. Last I checked, Congress voted to set the debt ceiling at $7.4T--over three times our current intake in taxes.

I object to the comparison w/Canada. Its population is barely a tenth of ours, its currency is weaker, and its taxes are much higher. I don't think our goal should be to emulate them in this fashion, particularly given their slipshodly administered socialized medicine.

Also, the "relatively uncontrollable" spending (Congressional definition, not mine) isn't uncontrollable, not even relatively. Congress could pass legislation to stop it all, were they so inclined. But a lot of grumpy citizens would vote them out of office if they did, so those ballot mice aren't about to do that.

Government waste isn't possible to eliminate under our current form of government. Even if government were run by honest clairvoyant geniuses (clearly not the case), it would STILL be incredibly wasteful. Many government programs which require spending, such as disaster relief, don't produce anything tangible to the taxpayer until something goes wrong.

My solutions: first, lose unconstitutional programs including, but not limited to the NEA, agricultural price supports, the war on drugs, faith-based initiatives and the department of homeland security.

Second, make "homeland security" more cost-effective and efficient by consolidating the FBI, CIA, NSA, NSC and the department of homeland security. We'll save a fortune in payroll and streamline our security systems.

Third, amend the constitution to provide for non-elective health care for all Americans. Fiscally, it makes more sense. I live in Texas, where we've just cut the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and every dollar the state saved by doing it is cost the taxpayers $3-$5 in caring for uninsured children and everyone they infect! It's not only moral to insure them, it's cost-effective as well. Take a beat to admire the synergy...

Fourth: kill all income taxes (personal, corporate, AND investment) and replace them all with a consumption tax which leaves all current tax exemptions on goods and services intact. This will not significantly affect workers: they'll lose nothing to withholding taxes but get no tax refunds, they'll save more but there'll be a sudden shock of inflation which will make the $ worth proportionately less. The working poor will be particularly better off, since food and medicine are already sales-tax exempt. The wealthy will have to shift their focus, since investing will no longer be taxed but frivolous spending will be, and tax dodgers such as drug dealers will now find a flat rate of say, 17%, of every dollar going to Uncle Sam.

I doubt whether you'll consider my suggestions realistically available options, but I have hope.

Yes, and I'm so glad you did too! Sigourney Weaver saw Kevin Kline's character doing what so many educated Americans who don't work in gov't would like to do--see the budget streamlined by somebody who isn't financially vested in the outcome.

I am definitely on the fiscally conservative side of the Democrat party. I have seen myself that businesses, private charities and houses of worship can do so much to provide service to the people and to help people through tough times. They usually do it in a way that is a lot less wasteful than the government. However, businesses tend to follow the profit margin and charities are not accountable to the people and churches and synagogues are terribly local in their effect. We still need government to step in where and when other services are not available.

In this way, I am not in favor of every person for him or herself but I am in favor of encouraging job growth rather than expanding programs. Middle class families with kids and small business owners (maybe under 50 employees) need to get the lion's share of tax cuts. Richer folks spend all day growing their own assets, all of the rest of us don't have the time or expertise. I actually like the idea that my tax money and my social security goes to lift up lots of other people, but I don't like that Congressman X or Senator Y gets to pander to his or her constituency by building a brand new courthouse or a stadium or whatever when the money is best spent somewhere else. E.G. This whole distribution of funds for homeland security and education makes me well ....scowl. Kids in the county next door get 2 full sets of brand new textbooks each. Kids about 100 miles away go to school in a run down 50 year old building.