Overall, this column by Robert Samuelson is excellent. Here is one part, though, that is a bit confusing:
…the budget should be balanced -- or run a surplus -- when the economy is close to "full employment," as it is now. Balancing the budget forces politicians to make uncomfortable choices. Which programs are sufficiently needed or popular to justify unpleasant taxes? Balancing the budget also lightens the debt burden. One figure Bush doesn't praise is the annual interest payment on the growing federal debt. Even by White House estimates, it will rise from $184 billion in 2005 to $302 billion in 2011.
In the third sentence of that paragraph, is Samuelson suggesting that taxes should be raised, or that politicians need to make choices about which programs to keep and which to eliminate? Your thoughts would be appreciated.