National Debt and Year to Year Deficit Spending

Reading this Ezra Klien blog post where he makes this point:

... Well, they weren't very worried about the economy. But now they're terrified about the economy. And deficits -- which signify irresponsible money management to voters who think of things in terms of household finances rather than Keynesian counter-cyclical spending -- are evidence, to them, that the government isn't handling the economy correctly. The fact that deficits rise sharply during recessions simply confirms to voters that there's a connection. ...

Now I'll leave the Keynesian economic debate to others that care but isn't the larger point about citizens -and the political parties- worrying about year to year deficit spending and national debt only in times of crisis part of the massive problem with how this country -again, its voters and politicians- functions? Sure Republican's claim to be the party of fiscal conservatism even if the only time they've been responsible was the 90's under Newt Gingrich and the Clinton Administration; not to mention they just helped kill the bi-partisan deficit commission bill in the Senate. Sure Democrats support pay-go and even just passed it out of congress but do they think everyone missed the excessive exceptions? This WaPo article runs down a few key ones:

... For example, the rules allow Obama to extend tax breaks for the middle class enacted during the George W. Bush administration without covering the cost. ... The rules also permit lawmakers to protect taxpayers from the expansion of the alternative minimum tax for two years, lower the estate tax for two years and protect doctors who serve Medicare patients from a scheduled pay cut through 2014.

Now I'm not a high tax person and do feel taxes are too high as they are but this country must ask itself a few things:
1) Were the 90's really that bad of a time for people financially?
2) Do we care about lower taxes or national debt? People MUST start understanding that neither party is ever, ever going to cut spending to meet current tax rates and if one thing is clear, among all the "government away from my Medicare" signs etc, it's that people hate big government until a party starts trying to make cuts to government programs. Or maybe no one honestly saw the countless news reports or read the countless articles that mentioned the fact that we all saw two tax cuts while growing government by 40% at the same time?

Maybe growing government without raising taxes under Obama will work though? His administration is only going to tax those over $200,000 a year (individual). That'll certainly close the 40% growth rate plus the amount of growth under his administration.

The size of government had nothing to do with this recession. The size of government had nothing to do with the recession President Bush started his administration in the middle of. Economic bubbles burst with or without government all the time. Now this last recession certainly happened in large part due to wrongheaded government regulation combined with the lack of enforcement of regulation but the American people and their banks played an equal part in it. (Isn't it amazing that after all of this, still no one talks about the need for better societal education of mortgages, debt, and housing?)

This country needs to have a candid and honest discussion on what it feels most comfortable with. Either non-existent tax relative to the rest of the world (like America currently has for individuals but not business), somewhere in the middle (around the rates in the 90's), or high like Europe. Government isn't a free lunch. Defending the country, overseeing interstate commerce, international trade, health care, retirement, either this country wants these things and is willing to pay for them or it isn't. Continually offering more Government while asking for less money doesn't work.