One of the things most annoying about your questions is loading them with a moniker
i.e. BUSH tax cuts, for example, as if that name changes the impact to the mathematics of economics, or borrow and spend, or for that matter, anything. Another nauseating hobby is to attribute to affable Reagan the prospect of repeating cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy, which works well when you're scaling back from 70% to 35%, but kind of falls apart as you tickle the remaining percentages. It fell apart in 1983 when the government, bereft of the cash flows it needed to fund its useless arms race to put the finishing touches on Russkies bankrupt by 1978 anyway, replaced tax and spend with borrow and spend. Everybody "likes" low taxes and affability, so to bring the fact that none of those increases in GDP wound up paying the bills of government 1980-88 without whopping borrow and spend habits that increased the national debt nearly four fold, the moment you mention Reagan, the instant response, Oh, I liked him! meets reality and reality loses. Namely, reality for an adult is doing things that sometimes, well, you don't like, but need to get done.
It's management by sound bites and name calling, reality be damned. My favorite mythology is nomination of the mini pop enjoyed by retail around XMAS is called the Santa Claus rally, or how about the moniker "the Clinton boom years" as if "who" was more valuable than "what" economically. If math were based on who took was responsible for the activity, on every math test, I'd just write "I met Einstein in 1957, and these are some of the same numbers he used" and I'd get an "A" without writing a single answer. Works for me!
The mathematics is, without cuts, you can't get the revenue of govt without borrowing, and the Budget for the military is $1 Trillion we can cut in half easily by getting the rest of the world to pony up to policing duties, cutting our penchant for global domination back to nuclear deterrent, cutting the Armed Forces and govt personnel by half. and firing nukes for effect once in a while so folks think we're serious, cut out the fistfights house to house in Flablungastan. Again, we have government gone wild since Johnson gave us Medicaid nobody asked for or was sitting on a platform we could vote for, Nixon took us off the silver standard, against the law since Revolutionary times, Presidents don't ask for a declaration of war and Congress skates by just putting out the funding as an afterthought.
So I'd toss Medicaid into the #$%$per, and Obamacare right after it, and cut the Defense budget by half, and put some serious thought into vetting serious alternatives to dinosaur #$%$ to fuel our cars and homes with some govt incentives, only this time, well thought out and not just flung out the window, that hasn't worked I'll grant you.
There's half the budget and a lot of borrow and spend goes away. A lot of need to print money goes away. And now, none too soon, I will go away.
I'm for any tax cut that is accompanied by cuts in expenditures. Half to 2/3 military expenditures are unnecessary. I don't remember Obamacare being on the platform in 2007 or 2011. I don't remember Medicaid on anybody's radar 1968 except Johnsons. I don't remember the rationale tripling everyone's military pay in 1970 as if money was the reason soliers and sailors want to stay alive. I don't remember having one failure in supporting alternate energy by not vetting co's supported adequately as any reason not to try again with more effective research and controls.
I don't remember a lot of things, One of those things are, by labeling something as a liberal or conservative, it is good bad or indifferent. I look at the program.
The budget cannot be balanced. Because of the debt based money—the real problem—deficit financing has been baked into the cake. You boys need to have a serious look at the failures of all other interest bearing currencies to get a better understanding of what is going on. Otherwise, you're going to squander a great deal of time trying to find a solution where there isn't one.