Note that, in practice, this isn't actually a false dilemma. Sure, in theory we could lower spending to the point that it would be possible to balance the budget while keeping taxes low, but in practice, there's nowhere near enough public support to push through the level of spending cuts that a cuts-only approach would require. So, dealing with the world as it is, there's a tension between the twin conservative goals of lower taxes and balanced budgets. I'm curious which goal people here think should take priority.

Note that, in practice, this isn't actually a false dilemma.

It doesn't take public support, just determination on the part of the representatives. Sorta like Obamacare, but in reverse.

He's askign which is a priority, not saying "if you can only do one or the other, which do you do?" Something being a priority doesn't mean that's the only thing you do.

Then he's asking the wrong question.

"If you can only do one to balance the budget, which should be the priority: raise taxes, or cut spending?"

He is assuming that increasing taxes or maintaining their current level is the only way to balance the budget. He is assuming that spending can not be reduced.

The government's current tax revenue is the lowest it's ever been since WWII, less than 15% of GDP.

If you want to use GDP as the benchmark:
In 1949 the tax revenue was a lower percentage of GDP, and the Federal Government ran a surplus.
In 1950 it was even lower, and the Gov't only ran a deficit 1.1% of GDP.
In 2009 government spending was the highest it's ever been (as a percentage of GDP).
In 2010 government spending was the highest it's ever been except for 1946 (as a percentage of GDP).
In 2009 the Gov't ran a deficit that was 10% of GDP.
In 2010 the Gov't ran a deficit that was 8.9% of GDP.

How so, Kaffis? Aren't lower taxes and balanced budgets both "ends" for conservatives?

The government's current tax revenue is the lowest it's ever been since WWII, less than 15% of GDP.

Oh yeah, and lowering taxes without cutting spending doesn't actually lower taxes.

Okay...RD used that figure the other day, and I skewered it then, and I will do it again now.

%age of GDP is a useless measure. How does tax revenue fair as an absolute figure? Go ahead, and even adjust it for inflation. How does it fair then? It may still be low right now, you're in a bit of economic trouble for the last few years, but still, "less than 15% of GDP" tells us NOTHING, since GDP is not an indicator that should have any bearing on government spending or the budget.

Percentage of GDP is a better measure than trying to adjust 1950s taxation for inflation, because nobody can even remotely agree on what the inflation rate has actually been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_system_in_China

Just for comparison's sake.