Peculiar though as it may seem, by voting for popular governments coming to power, it is the electorate which almost unknowingly ratifies the use of deficit-spending by governments. Without extensive deficit-spending programs, governments cannot be found favorable without enticing the populace to vote in favor of social welfare programs, tax credits, national security, federal building programs, industrial tax benefits, real estate investment advantages, and many other programs colloquially known as "pork".
The point is that funds needed to finance such programs cannot sufficiently be generated from tax revenue alone. Hence additional fiat currency is created by the Federal Reserve's purchase of US Treasury bonds, albeit from the Federal Reserve's zero-balance account. The US Treasury then distributes funds to finance such programs at the government's behest and the national deficit increases as the government spends more of the newly printed fiat currency. Hence the term deficit-spending comes to light and plagues the viability of the national economy as the value of its fiat currency is continually eroded away through perpetual printing and creation effectively from thin air.
The question then emerges as to whether the voting public realizes that every time it is attracted by one or more government programs promoted by an incumbent party either seeking to be voted into office or contemplating re-election, the electorate is seemingly contributing to the undermining of the value of its savings and pensions which comes about by additional fiat currency printing and deficit-spending. Here the value of the fiat currency is continuously reduced due to its ever-increasing supply.
The problem that immediately comes to mind is how would the electorate be able to choose between political parties without choosing between the government programs promulgated by each party in order to cast its vote. A mechanism is clearly needed to stabilize the value of the fiat currency by tying the currency to, for instance, a basket of commodities enjoying a relatively stable store of value. Deficit-spending may then be somewhat more controlled, leading perhaps to more intense competition between political parties running for office. But at least it would go some way towards preserving as best possible the value of one's savings and pensions.
In closing, the question remains as to why one should even vote for governments embroiled in deficit-spending. Placing the country in increasingly more debt to please the electorate seems ludicrous and highly irresponsible of any government. For one to cast one's vote in favor of such activity makes one practically masochistic and perhaps necessitating psychiatric treatment. Governments cannot survive without going into debt under the present national economic structure. Financial education is urgently needed for the voting public and a radical stabilization of value in the nation's fiat currency is promptly required. This would go some way to ensuring the survival of the country's economic viability instead of digging one's grave deeper by voting in response to the electoral popularity of incoming governments promising numerous deficit-spending programs.