spending cuts are good in theory-—but proposed spending cuts are even attacked here. People were complaining when Obama cut the NASA budget-—and manned space flights and moon landings are a luxury of a prosperous government.
I don’t even want to see this place if defense spending is ever cut
Government has legitimate functions, national defense is one of them.
The budget for NASA is about 1-2% of that of combined social programs. Cutting spending for NASA to fix the dificit is like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon.
Defense spending is the most important function of the government. It's the primary reason for having one at all. It's a fundamentally valid and critical use of taxpayer money.
Propping up ludicrous union pensions, on the other hand, is not.
Neither is federal control of education.
Neither is federal control of land other than national parks.
Neither is attempting to cover health care for the whole country.
Neither is abortion.
Neither is protecting spotted owls.
Neither is regulating the size of toilet I can buy.
...
Get the picture?
"Cutting spending" isn't a specific remedy, but it suggests cutting where it makes sense.
You could "lose weight" by cutting off your legs, but the result wouldn't be beneficial. That fact doesn't mean "losing weight" is a Bad Thing, just that you should do it properly.
Cut federal spending in the right places, by dropping unconstitutional departments, programs, entitlements and religions (environmentalism), then you'll unburden taxpayers so they can get back on their feet.