Tax cuts result in increased revenue to the Treasury; it has worked every time it's been tried.  Not only did it work for Bush 43 and Ronald Reagan, it also worked for John F. Kennedy.  It's an economic theory called the Laffer Curve.

You need to brush up on your civics if you think the President is the one who controls the federal purse strings.  The deficits in the Reagan years were caused by out-of-control Congresses which outspent every Reagan budget except one.  As a matter of fact, each year, Tip O'Neil and the the Dems would host ceremonies on Capitol Hill to declare Reagan's budgets "dead on arrival".  Considering the threat from the Soviet Union at the time, vetoing spendthrift Democrats wouldn't have been a smart move on Reagan's part.

In spite of that, the Reagan tax cuts resulted in 96 consecutive months of one of the greatest peacetime economic expansions this nation has ever seen.  Contrast that with Clinton, who raised taxes from 36% to 39% (by whose economic theory does that work?) and under whose watch the national debt rose from $2 trillion to $5.7 trillion.  

The balanced budgets you speak of were the result of increased government revenues and economic growth,  especially after Clinton signed the bill that cut the capital gains tax.

"Pay back the people who gave campaign contributions to the winner"?  Letting people keep their own money is hardly a political payback.  As far as Social Security is concerned, there hasn't been a Social Security Trust Fund since 1965, when LBJ used it to pay for the Great Society programs that were supposed to "help the needy".  Incidentally, non-defense spending is up 36% on Bush 43's watch, in case you haven't noticed.  That's more than under Carter and Clinton combined.

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, and it really should be on Political Junk, but I just had to set the record straight.