[dragonwriter]

> How it should be is just covering the cost of a moving-average window for the previous x amount of years of spending mapping according to a integration across income.

No, it shouldn't. If you wanted to target a balanced budget that wouldn't work, and I don't know why you would want to target perpetual deficits as a locked-in rule.

> It's nonsensically inefficient to debate on taxation without consideration of spending, and vice versa.

Whether or not a bill included mandates on both sides, IME, it's very rare for either spending it taxed to be debated without consideration (even if the quality is poor) of the other.

[RobLach]

You can explicitly budget in a surplus target.