While the Left is concerned because their message isn't getting out (it really is, that is why it is rejected) the Republicans seem to have a problem framing their argument as well. For instance, on the recent budget compromise, the agreement was to cut $38 billion from an already bloated budget. $38 billion sounds like a lot of money, and the opponents have been able to demagogue Republicans as wanting to starve old people and kill kids with that amount of cuts.
But what if instead of arguing for that amount of cuts, they were instead to call for a 5% cut across the board in all government spending? That amount doesn't seem so much does it? Surely the government could exist on 95% of what it had before. And the beauty of the thing is that a 5% cut would equal about $180 billion in savings. Still too little concerning a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, but if you keep cutting 5% every year, you could actually get down to a real number.
Another argument that needs to be made is that we need to balance our priorities while we balance the budget. For instance, the corporation for public broadcasting received $422 million in federal subsidies last year. How many meals would that provide for the elderly? How many children could receive immunizations for that amount? In fact, let's keep going, National Endowment for the Arts? How many homeless shelters could we provide for the same amount? Green energy subsidies - those that raise the price of food and fuel? Instead of doing that, reorienting the money into mass urban transit. In fact, if you were to eliminate the Department of Education, how many more Pell grants could be offered from the savings?
The trick would be to defund these organizations, and put half the savings into debt reduction and the other half into more worthwhile aid to the truly needy.
But they don't call Republicans the "Stupid Party" for nothing.