I've always resented these T/F distinctions because at the very heart of any quality analysis is a clear understanding of the desires of the involved parties. It would be abhorrently foolish to press forward in the name of efficiency without a clear understanding of what the absolute goals of the actions were, and it would be equally foolish to attempt to achieve a particular set of desires without spending time logically analyzing the situation. Your post is a grotesque oversimplification. Cutting spending, increasing taxes, providing welfare, balancing the budget, et cetera, are all good only insofar as they facilitate a state which most closely resembles the ideal (which itself must be derived from an analysis of the aggregate desires of the populace). Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of our society, each is perhaps an ideal at one time or another, but none should be blindly touted as an absolutely superior method.