Unfortunately, they will take note of it as "run the government like a business", which tends to be how supply-side economists would prefer the government to be run anyway.
Actually, it's not - ask any business that's taken funding, borrowed to invest, or even run an overdraft as part of their low season. Spending less than or equal to revenues is one way to run a business, especially a small business that you only intend to grow incrementally (if at all). Borrowing to invest for faster growth is a very rational way to run a business in many situations (market opportunity, large personal vision etc).
Again, I'm just addressing the business analogy - here's my politics disclaimer http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822770
The problem with the US is that they aren't just borrowing in a low season, they're borrowing every season.
That is the problem the US have -- they don't create anything.
I try not to claim a political preference left or right[1], but to prevent confusion I do feel they're trying to make this 'business' much smaller than it needs to be.
[1] My political preference is merely that politicans are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
That doesn't seem very efficient to me. The effect of large bonuses on the cost of administration seems a bit high.