There is a difference between looking to balance the budget in good economic times and trying to balance the budget during a recession. Context is important. It makes sense to reduce deficits during good economic times and increase spending during recessions. This is called counter cyclical policy. Keynes got this correct in 1936. The New Deal put some of these policies in place. Many would say, "Duh". However, most Republicans don't accept these ideas and have been fighting the New Deal ever since.

Republicans don't believe in counter cyclical spending policies which is why Republican controlled governments can run massive deficits during economic good times and exacerbate recessions by spending cuts in recessions. They promote "banana plantation economics". Constantly rigging the system against those at the bottom and in favor of those on the top eventually undermines the economy. Wiping out the bottom rungs collapses the ladder and causes pain at the top.

Because of their dismissal of counter cyclical fiscal policy, Republicans leave ALL the counter cyclical activity up to the Fed and monetary policy. Republicans are anti-regulation, so we get loose money with no standards. This creates prime conditions for speculative bubbles to form. Republicans are also anti-union and anti minimum wage so incomes on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder decline further adding to the problems of over leveraging credit. This combination of loose money, bad credit standards, eroding incomes and lack of investment in future productivity helped create the mother of all bubbles which has collapsed Big Finance.

Budget wonks know that balancing the budget depends on economic growth. Republicans don't accept this. They are still looking for the "wasteful spending" magic pony to balance the budget. They turn a blind eye to wasteful spending by DOD. Often they focus on social safety net spending. Health issues obliterate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and destroy ability to borrow by people on the lowest rungs. Cutting off the flow of income to the bottom rungs of the economy tanks demand because the velocity of money on the bottom rungs is the highest. Because most businesses don't see much further than the bottom line of the next quarter, it is up to government to keep the economy on a sustainable track.

Trying to nickel and dime the system will lead to poor budget outcomes if recovery is delayed. One part of the 2000 surplus was the higher Clinton tax rates. However, a huge part of the surplus was the sustained economic growth of the 1990s that made it possible to collect enough revenue at the comparatively low Clinton tax rates.

"It makes sense to reduce deficits during good economic times and increase spending during recessions. "

This sounds like you are proposing permanent deficts. I thought countercyclical policy meant surpluses during the good times to balance out the deficits during the bad... Of course, there are *never* surpluses in the good times (repeat after me, the U.S. budget hasn't has a real surplus since the 1960s), because the present *always* can think of really great reasons why now would be a really bad time not to spend some more money. So sure countercyclical policies would be great; it's just not what we get. What we get is a lecture on the importance of countercyclical policies when the times get tough, and when times get better - we keep on borrowing and spending, only not quite as much.