Supposing you gave your kid $10 a week allowance and he spent $12, borrowing $2.  He said $10 wasn’t enough, and you raised it to $12.  Then he spent $15, because $12 wasn’t enough.  Then it was $20.  After a while, he owed more than a week’s worth of allowance, and then a month’s.  Eventually, you’d get fed up and tell him you were lowering it from $20 (double what it was originally) to $19, and that he’d have to spend less.

This is common sense, right?  The only ridiculous part would be letting it double in the first place.

Ahhh, but the kid throws a fit.  He tells you your greedy, and that you need to pay what’s fair.  And he asks you how he’s supposed to pay for a decrease to $19, as if it’s his money and everything you earn and still have is what you’re allowed to keep by your own kid.  Would you put up with this?

Of course you would, because you already do.  The hypothetical scenario above is what the government does constantly.  No matter what it receives, it spends more.  And it’s your fault it doesn’t have enough, even though it takes in more and more all the time.  People accept the premise the government doesn’t take in enough money, but it takes in more than it needs and wastes it.  So consider this.  Do you believe the government spends money efficiently?  Of course not.

So why believe it needs more, when the best way to force efficiency is to decrease what it has to waste?