Be careful what you wish for. Balancing the budget is trivially easy, but you may not find the result pleasing. Balancing the budget can just as easily be done by raising revenue as by reducing expenditures.
Ordinary People can only do so much to raise their revenue. They can cover big capital expenses Now, like house or car, by taking on debt in the form of a mortgage or loan, or by buying on credit. This of course adds additional expense Later in the form of debt service, and most people understand this.
The state, on the other hand, has apparently unlimited ability to raise their revenue. They "just" raise taxes to whatever level is necessary. The devil is in the details. If you raise corporate taxes, the corporations must either raise the prices of their goods and services, or cut expenses in the form of wages. Either way there is blowback. Raising prices beyond a certain optimum lowers unit sales too much, and therefore lowers corporate revenue, leading to lower profits, which means a lower tax base. Lowering wages tends to impoverish the public, which means ye friendly state loses personal income taxes. Finally, if you raise personal taxes, you directly impoverish the public, which tends to make them turn against those in power.
On the other hand, if the state doesn't balance its budget, it can borrow money. This has its obvious downside, with which all are very familiar.
So whether the budget is balanced or not, the consequence of overspending is pretty much the same. Impoverishment. You can play games favoring the present at the expense of the future, but you cannot avoid the consequence entirely.
Now, if you really think the state is going to balance its budget by controlling spending rather than increasing revenue, I have to ask, what's it like in paradise? Not much like the world I live in, I suppose.
