Is it any less of a waste of time to talk about those three items, each of which is considered a core concern of one of the two parties in control and will likely never be properly gutted?

If you can't afford the shit that you're unwilling to live without, you need to find a way to make more money. To me, America seems to be in this situation, yet the anti-tax sentiment is so strong here that that stark reality is never addressed honestly. People fairly broadly want these things, so we best find a way to pay for them.

Personally, I'd love to see a situation where the tax rates are mandated to be mere functions of spending, rather than being negotiated as if they're completely disconnected entities. Then Congress has only one knob to fiddle with, how much they want to spend. By letting them decide completely independently how much they want to make we expose ourselves to the obvious outcome, that a lot more goes out than comes in, and that's never going to be properly addressed unless we take it on directly.

You cannot raise enough taxes to balance the budget. Based on income, you'd have to raise approx. 175%. Based on all taxes you'd have to raise by 50%! Such enormous tax increases would destroy business, investment, and people's paychecks. We want more people paying the same rates through economic growth.

It's not a waste of time if you want to balance the budget to focus on medicare and the military, but addressing the war on drugs is. I already provided numbers proving this. The fact that two parties aren't addressing them is why everyone is pissed off and freaked out. Neither party has introduced a budget that is balanced, or even on a path to being balanced.

Poeople don't want taxes raised, but they don't want medicare cut. So they borrow. And borrow. And borrow... and now borrowing is hurting us because we've done it so much. Eventually we won't be able to borrow anymore. Infinite borrowing is consequentially the same as defaulting.

Fareed Zakaria said in February 2010: "But, in one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget. Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level...So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends."

As an example, let's say you decide to cut 30% on defense. You cannot realistically do that by deciding to drop, say, the navy. There are lots of dependencies to consider (does it make sense to have marines, but no navy? Should we perhaps keep a small part of the navy for supporting the marines? What part? Can the air force maintain a global presence without carriers? If not, how many carriers do we really need? Can those carriers do without other ships for protection? Etc) People in charge will delegate filling in the details and suggesting a coherent set of cuts to subordinates.

After a few levels of such delegation, people will be talking about such 0.5% items. For that reason, I do not think you should ignore such smallish items.