Jane Galt has a great post on what the procedural difference is between a tax cut and increased spending is. Namely, that the latter considerably outlast the former:

What's going to happen when the Democrats control at two out of three of the Senate, House, and Oval Office? Those tax cuts are going away. Don't believe me? Tax rates have fluctuated by as much as 50% between presidents in the last half-century, maybe more. Just one example: Reagan cut 'em, Bush/Clinton raised them, Bush II cut them again. Projecting deficits from these tax cuts forever and ever is stupid, because we're only one election away from seeing them reversed.

Daniel Goldberg has been very tough on the Bush Administration for increasing spending and cutting taxes, thus increasing the deficit. Rightfully so. As someone who would very much like a near-balanced budget, I am concerned about the growing deficit and hefty interest payments that we will be paying for some time to come.

However, that's where my agreement with budget hawk liberals ends. My problem isn't with the tax cuts, it's with the spending increase. I support the Department of Homeland Security (though I would do it differently, if I were in charge of it), but Bush's failure to contain spending in other areas is quite unsettling and the education bill he passed in his first year in office was absolutely odious.

So does that mean that I regret voting for Bush and/or will vote for his Democratic rival in 2004? Absolutely not. The alternative to Bush's dubious financial policies are Democratic calls for more spending which, in the long run, is much worse, because once those are instituted, they won't be going away until fiscal restraint is the only issue of the day, and that just doesn't happen very often. In the 90's, it took a mentally unstable Texas businessman winning 20% of the vote to catch the major parties' attention to make it happen.

The economy going down the crapper and the deficits aren't so much a reason that I shouldn't have voted for Bush, it's actually the reason that I did.

Up until late 1999, I had planned to vote for Al Gore. I was almost excited about the prospect of it. "He's Bill Clinton without the gross immorality," I reasoned.

At some point, I jumped on the John McCain bandwagon and, had it not been for what became a deeply personal discomfort for the man, that's likely where I'd still be. Loony views on campaign finance reform aside, McCain advocated very modest tax cuts, decreased government spending, and paying down the national debt.

That was, and remains, the perfect platform to win my vote.

Once Bush won the nomination, that no longer became an option. The choice, as I saw it, was tax cuts that might lead to deficits if the economy turns sour, or a cash givaways to seniors (whether they need it or not) that might also lead to deficits.

In the end, I had to conclude that in the long term, Gore's views were much more dangerous to our fiscal health. Bush's tax cuts might backfire, but they could be retracted. Of the last four presidents, two raised taxes and two lowered them. If Gore were to get elected on his Free-Prescription-Drugs-for-Everyone-and-their-Dog platform, it would take a lot more political courage to tell seniors (in which everyone is or hopes to be one day) that the government is going to stop giving them what it once did. That's too much money to too many people ever to reverse.

So, the question is, when is Bush going to retract his tax cuts? I expect that to be a year or so after never. So does that mean that I will vote for someone to raise taxes to balance the budget?

Yes, actually, that's exactly what that means, so long as it is met with corresponding (and equal would be nice, but not necessary) cut in spending. Show me the Democrat that advocates a balanced budget over a brand-spanking new prescription drug plan and throwing federal money at education like confetti at a parade, and chances are (assuming his foreign policy is kosher) he's got my vote.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.