There's a big difference between you balancing and tightening your home budget and balancing state or federal spending. If I recall correctly, you have two people to administrate your finances (yourself and your wife) and seven or eight total consumers in your household (three daughters and three dogs, right?) If 25% of the US population was employed to work our finances, and the overhead from communication and logistics were nearly zero the way it is in your household, we'd certainly have a much more agile system. But can you imagine the kind of planning that would entail? These things don't scale in a linear way - as a matter of fact, problems like this are at the cutting edge of information science today, and as far as we can tell, there is no neat-and-tidy solution to managing systems as big as our nation. The best we can do is make gradual adjustments and analyze the results carefully.
Yes, if you receive a tax cut, you can hire another worker. But how many subsidized businesses lose out on their assistance so that you can do that? (And yes, despite conservative rhetoric, much of the US is subsidized, socialized and has been for a very long time - look at the finance sector, or state or federal lobbies.) How many public programs lose funding and put people on the street. I agree with you that people shouldn't be living on handouts when they can otherwise support themselves - but you're not going to be able to change the fact that there will always be a group of people that take advantage. Some of them are on SSI - others are embezzling money from their company or the government entity they work with - there are those that ransack suburban homes and others that run Ponzi schemes. At least we have records about who collects SSI and under what pretenses.