hippies and a balanced budget

I recently received this email from a really good friend who realizes that I am probably closer to being a hippie liberal freakshow than I like to admit and certainly more than most people believe. Here's the article followed by some thoughts about the debate that occurs within me when I read this article:

"Today, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss
(R-Ga.) and other committee members did the right thing by
removing more than $500 million in cuts to the federal food
stamps program that existed in earlier budget proposals. By
resisting cuts to vital nutrition programs, they chose the
well-being of America's most vulnerable working families over
partisan politics.

But other critical programs - health care, student loans and
more - for low-income families are still at risk this week!
Legislation is still being finalized in other Senate committees
that will determine future funding for Medicaid and other
domestic safety net programs. Meanwhile, Congressional leaders
still plan $70 billion in new tax cuts for the wealthiest among
us.

The change in course by Senator Chambliss and his Agriculture
Committee colleagues shows that our voices are being heard in
the halls of Congress! E-mail your senators and representatives
now and urge them to follow the lead of the Senate Agriculture
Committee. Urge them to vote NO on cuts to food stamps and other
critical anti-poverty programs.

Take action now:
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/moral_budget2?rk=P7LJqf61oRXYW
"
So here's my problem...wouldn't a moral budget first and foremost be one that isn't spending billions in deficit? I guess my question with this stuff (without only reading groups like this that hunt and peck and take random budget cuts out of context without looking at the bigger picture of the budget) is always how do we get to a balanced budget if we don't cut anything? Easy answer, keep taxing the rich, but I have trouble believing that stat about 70 billion without more information. Where's the balance between helping the poor and still being fiscally responsible (and not being a communist where it doesn't pay to work for your money because the gov will just take it.) Last thought, if you don't take into account issues like the disadvantages of coming from a poor situation, minority race, or anything else that leaves your network with a distinct disadvantage, then you haven't thought through this enough and your opinion is on par with an ignorant bigot. Also, if you just want to blame Bush and call him a dumb racist that creates hurricanes to intentionally kill the poor- then I have even less use for you. Have a nice day:-)