From National Journal, an article that speculates that advocates of “starving the beast” of federal government spending are not necessarily articulating the appropriate rationale for tax cuts (pro-growth and pro-freedom).  By not looking to cut taxes AND reduce spending, these advocates are essentially allowing budget deficits to grow.  Clearly, this has been the Bush Administration’s tack as well as the tactic of much of the current members of Congress.  Perhaps, in a round about, back door way (as the article offers) eventually, spending cuts will have to occur as a result of the ballooning deficits (and democrats will have to be on board).  What this means, however, is that even if you are a “starve the beast” advocate, you’re still not making the case in an open way.  Basically if you’re principled about limited government spending, you need tax cuts and spending cuts, not tax cuts and spending increases.  My concern is the problem of trying to go about getting spending cuts through the back door is that the back door may be locked by the time you’re ready to actually walk through.