Democrats: "The cure for our problems? More spending!"

Help me out here. I can't recall which of these two stories is true: Is the federal government in trouble for a) spending far more than our national income; or b) spending too little?

I thought both our annual deficit and total national debt were setting new records every month, but I've been killing brain cells with ethanol for so long now that I'm not really sure. I searched the front page of the NYT and WaPo but any articles on this topic are so riddled with ambiguity that it's hard to tell.

Wait, this'll help: Reuters is reporting that Democratic leaders--and in particular, assistant senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin--called today for more government spending...to "boost the sluggish economy."

What a plan! Heck, I'll bet that if the feds were to spend...oh, say, $787 Billion or so...in grants to Democrat-run cities and states and union-run auto makers, the national unemployment rate would absolutely plummet! That's some really PhD-level thinking there, Dick.

So I guess that means we must be running a surplus, since nobody would propose spending such a huge amount if we were already spending a lot more than tax revenue took in. But it'd surely be worth it.

What? You say the gubmint doesn't have a surplus? Ya say the gubmint is actually at record debt levels, but still wants to borrow more? But...but...that sounds insane. It would mean having to borrow every penny the feds wanted to spend!

What kind of insane jackass would seriously propose such a thing?

Ah. Well of course. That explains so much.