Great opening on this post (the original closes with the statement), "the worst federal budget policy is the one we're now following."
It's worth a read and so is the full article, the main take away is that we should institute automatic stabilizers and budget balancing measures tied to the unemployment rate and worry about long term structural deficits and not stimulus spending.
For the questions raised at the end, I have an answer to the need to fund a war even with these stabilizers are in place. Wars should be funded solely through spending cuts or tax increases to force Congress and the President to seriously question whether or not we need to be in it. For the few truly serious wars we can't avoid, this restriction should be relaxed if we use the draft. Politicians should face very, very tough choices when initiating a conflict, I think a choice between paying for it and a draft are sufficiently unpleasent to insure proper discipline. War should be an unpleasant necessity, not a desirable policy, and we've been experiencing the unpleasant consequences of what happens when it isn't unpleasant enough for politicians the last few years.
Back on topic, I think the concerns mentioned about the policy of using the unemployment rate to enforce discipline are answerable and the policy is a good one, that logically should be able to attract bipartisan support given the beliefs and priorities expressed by each party. Given their actual expressed preferences instead, I am certain this won't be seriously mentioned by anyone, and if it is brought up the inconsiderate rogue mentioning it will enjoy a moment of true bipartisanship in being shouted down.