Frankly, it's a lot of common sense. Talking to my economist friends, like the esteemed Jack Mintz and others.... Some economists don't like it when I use a simple example, because apparently households are different from governments. Clearly they are, but I think the basics are the same: revenues and expenses. If revenues are less than expenses, there is a deficit, whether it's in a household or government. If you accumulate debt, you're going to have to pay somebody interest costs. When those interest costs rise to the point that they achieve a significant amount of the spending budget, whether it's in a household or a government, something has to give. In the household, if it's my household, that means my grocery bill goes down or my kids' discretionary spending goes down. In government, service programs go down.
I've heard some witnesses today say—and have listened to others—they want the government to spend lots of money. Of course everybody wants to receive money, but there's only so much money to go around. The short answer to your question is that I'd like to see the government continue to provide essential services that aren't compromised.