The government, as far as I can tell, is paying interest on the debt and as such your example seems flawed. It would be like you decide to stop going to restaurants and now you aren't going into debt.
Sure, but if everyone stops going to restaurants, guess what happens to them?
Cutting for the sake of cutting ignores what you are cutting. Cutting healthcare and education gets very expensive in the long run, for example, if you do enough damage. It is premature to declare victory when the knock-on effects are years or decades down the line. (As with not paying your mortgage; it'll be a little while before the pain hits.)
