All of us can pontificate about cutting spending, that's the easy part. What to cut is the hard part. I agree that some cuts must occur and some tax increases must occur. But what has happended in Washington over the last 20 years is a shift of responsibility and cost from the Feds to the state.
It's easy to mandate that the states are now tasked with specific programs, and many should be at the state level. The problem occurs when no assistance in funding happens. The Feds should pay for some portion of a program that is shifted. Take Medicaid dollars. Medicaid is not only for the poor of a state but those who are mentally and physically disabled. If you cut Medicaid dollars, sure, some of the poor who sit on their lazy asses and collect welfare are impacted, but so are those mentally handicapped. Do you want to cut their dollars too when they have no other means of support?
This is not an easy issue. The Feds provide a percentage of dollars to each state to assist with Medicaid. Mississippi is the highest match of Medicaid dollars, with a match of 75 cents of Federal dollars for each 25 cents paid by the state. So for every $1 cut of Medicaid by Mississippi, they also lose $3 of a Federal match. So what happens? More Medicaid recipients lose funding which creates other problems such as higher crime, homelessness, etc.
States should cut spending and probably raise taxes before asking the Feds for any assistance, agreed. But one must consider the impact of deep cuts that actually hurt the vunerable. Difficult issues are not solved with rhetoric, but with careful understanding of the impact of one's decisions.