They also want a smaller scope for the government. So it's not like saying 'I want to run this business but bring in less money', it's more like saying 'I want to run a smaller business, so what departments can we do without'. Smaller business may actually make more profit (read: be more efficient) than the larger one.
I try not to claim a political preference left or right[1], but to prevent confusion I do feel they're trying to make this 'business' much smaller than it needs to be.
[1] My political preference is merely that politicans are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
Actually, it's not - ask any business that's taken funding, borrowed to invest, or even run an overdraft as part of their low season. Spending less than or equal to revenues is one way to run a business, especially a small business that you only intend to grow incrementally (if at all). Borrowing to invest for faster growth is a very rational way to run a business in many situations (market opportunity, large personal vision etc).
To clarify, I meant over the long term. If you're not making profits or at least breaking even over the long term (spending <= revenues), you're out of business.
The problem with the US is that they aren't just borrowing in a low season, they're borrowing every season.
I try not to claim a political preference left or right[1], but to prevent confusion I do feel they're trying to make this 'business' much smaller than it needs to be.
[1] My political preference is merely that politicans are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.