I wonder why no one ever asks the President at what point the country might be considered to have a spending problem. If we don’t have one now, what are the criteria that would persuade him that it had become true? I will concur that the President has no problem spending every penny of revenues and then some, with the assistance of Congress and the continuous spending resolution.
There is a discrepancy between revenues received and money spent or invested. Outgo exceeds income. Either there is a spending problem or there is a revenue problem. I gather the President and his fellow “whales” (in the gambler sense of the term) think there is a revenue problem. This is consistent with his goal to spend even more while claiming it will not add to the discrepancy, because the only ways that can be true is to either decrease current spending on something so the money can be redirected, or to acquire higher revenues. I just don’t think he plans to cut anything, but maybe he’ll fool me and gut the Department of Defense. I’d prefer to see the Departments of Energy and Environment go away, but I don’t expect him to cut anything, except the rate of growth of our GDP. And that will probably be unintentional.
For all that he says he wants a ‘balanced” approach, he cites nothing to support a contention that balance leads to a more effective result to grow the economy or create lots more jobs, or whatever he is after. Is it supposed to be “fair”? I would settle for “effective”.