A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes, our budget will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. Most important, our budget will reignite the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it in this country.

The truth is, the nation’s debt is a sign of overreach. Government is trying to do too much, and when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal, because it returns government to its proper limits and focus. By curbing government’s overreach, our budget will give families the space they need to thrive. …

The other side will warn of a relapse into recession—just as they predicted economic disaster when the budget sequester hit. But a balanced budget will help the economy. Smaller deficits will keep interest rates low, which will help small businesses to expand and hire. …

Our budget repeals the president’s health-care law and replaces it with patient-centered reforms. It also protects and strengthens Medicare. I want Medicare to be there for my kids—just as it’s there for my mom today. But Medicare is going broke. Under our proposal, those in or near retirement will see no changes, and future beneficiaries will inherit a program they can count on. Starting in 2024, we’ll offer eligible seniors a range of insurance plans from which they can choose—including traditional Medicare—and help them pay the premiums.

The other side will demagogue this issue. But remember: Anyone who attacks our Medicare proposal without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program’s demise. …

The current tax code is a Rubik’s cube that Americans spend six billion hours—and $160 billion—each year trying to solve. The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the industrialized world. So our budget paves the way for comprehensive tax reform. It calls for Congress to simplify the code by closing loopholes and consolidating tax rates. Our goal is to have just two brackets: 10% and 25%. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp has committed to pass a specific bill this year.

If we take these steps, the United States will once again become a haven of opportunity. The economy will grow, and the country will regain its strength. All we need is leadership. Washington owes the American people a balanced budget. It isn’t fair to take more from families so government can spend more.

The opposing view comes from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., as National Review observes in its Morning Jolt:

When it comes to chasing a balanced budget, President Obama is not exactly Inspector Javert (or Samuel Gerard, depending on your pop-culture frame of reference). But he admitted Tuesday he was never really trying that hard:

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, President Obama rejected calls to balance the federal budget in the next ten years and instead argued that his primary economic concern was not balancing the budget, but rather growing the economy.

“My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue,” he said.

“We noticed,” the guys at Weasel Zippers quip.

In the broadest sense, Obama is right: A country with the economic resources and general stability that the United States has enjoyed through much of its history can afford to run a deficit. Wiser minds than me argue that the real measuring stick is the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Our national debt is . . . $16,703,943,129,416.14, as of Monday. That’s $16.7 trillion.

Our nominal GDP is $15.6 trillion. Oof.

Looking at the inflation-adjusted numbers for our annual deficit, year by year . . . you know what used to be considered “a lot”? $500 billion, in 2004. (That year, unadjusted for inflation, it came in at $413 billion.) Back in 1991, it came in at $453 billion. So a half a trillion was the pre-Obama all-time high.

Now look at the Obama era: $1.5 trillion in 2009, $1.36 trillion in 2010, $1.32 trillion in 2011, $1.1 trillion in 2012. We’re supposed to be really happy that this year it might come in under a trillion, in the $900 billion range.

In other words, the best Obama has done is twice as bad as it’s ever been.

Which doesn’t mean Ryan’s budget is ideal as Reason.com points out:

Due to a variety of reasons, real spending has been flat for the past several years without Americans starving to death or being overrun by Islamic fundamentalists or neo-Soviet invaders. More important, the political establishment should understand that voters respond to politicians whose actions and policies stem from principle rather than from expediency. Was it only a week ago that a handful of senators led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.) created one of the most stirring moments in recent political memory simply by refusing to conduct business as usual? In standing up to a chief executive, an attorney general, and the man who now heads the CIA over questions of transparency and executive power, Rand Paul and his colleagues didn’t just show a spine and a vision sorely lacking in the typical Washington “statesman,” they spoke for voters who are rightly worried and concerned about the people who rule them. Whatever plaudits the filibuster partiicipants won, they also were widely attacked by the nation’s leading editorial boards and even senior members of their own party (John McCain memorably – and sadly – dubbed them “wacko birds”).

Would that the crew behind the House Republican budget had one ounce of the same spine and ideological fervor of folks such as Rand Paul. If they did (or if they dared to include people such as Justin Amash in the budgeting process), they might have produced a document that would actually address out-of-control government spending and a future that is overwhelmed not simply by red ink but by slow economic growth caused by debt overhang.

Sure, “The Path to Prosperity” will be “better” than the Senate’s long-awaited plan – at four years in the making, you’ve got to wonder if the ghost of slow-poke film director Stanley Kubrick is guiding that sad-sack document. And it will surely be “better” than the president’s – already late in turning in this year’s document, Obama has signaled that he’s not signing on to anything that doesn’t reverse the sequester’s cancellation of White House tours and other core functions of government.

But being “better” than plans that will be put forth by political opponents shouldn’t be mistaken for being “good,” or even worthy of support. The fact is that the GOP budget plan, apart from its first two years on the spending side, in which it slightly reduces outlays from the current amount, is nothing to celebrate. There are workable alternatives out there, including plans floated by people such Paul, Sen. Tom Coburn, and the Republican Study Committee. While none of these proposed reform agendas represent a turn-key operation, they all have the benefit of actually grappling with the actual issues that are both at hand and about to slam the American people in a few years’ time.