Deficits (Again...)

This morning I was scanning through via news websites when I came across another article by Kevin Williamson at National Review Online entitled,

"Beyond Economics."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWVkN2JkYTExODM5MjIwNGU5MDA3MjA3OTkyNTBhMDA=

After reading through a few paragraphs I was completely stunned. Here is the opening paragraph: "One hopes Ben Bernanke and the Fed gang are reading the Drudge Report, where the top news items one day last week were: Enlarged U.S. deficits allow Switzerland to displace the United States as the world’s most competitive economy; Obama asks the Senate to raise the debt ceiling beyond its current $12.1 trillion level; the United Nations continues its push for a “global currency” to displace the U.S. dollar as the world’s go-to reserve; and — this will be no surprise, given the other headlines — the ChiComs are freaking out."

Commonsense says that if one wants to stop going into debt then one should more than likely do the following:

1) Cut spending.
2) Spend wisely.
3) Differentiate between needs and wants.
4) Avoid adding to one's debt at all costs, borrowing only when absolutely necessary (such as buying a home or perhaps going to college).
5) If one does not have the money to pay for an item, do not buy it (which can be superseded by condition 4) in some cases).

It is an enigma, at least to me, that while many Americans know that 1) through 5) are methods by which one can avoid massive debt, the Federal government has a different mindset. When faced with financial hardship the Federal government begins spending money like 'drunken sailors' claiming that it needs to be done. However, I doubt this line of reasoning.
I know that there is a fundamental difference between Washington and the average American household; one is a government entity while the other is not. Therefore, the argument that could be advanced is the following: "Washington works differently than American households. Thus the rules for spending in average households do not apply to Washington."

I believe that the great fundamental difference between Washington and the average household (and I hope I am not oversimplifying things) is the following: The average American household has to work for its money, Washington does not.
Washington DC, like every other government throughout human history, survives via taxing the private sector; that is how governments get their money. However, unlike the average household, Washington essentially has an unlimited supply of money, because it can contact the US Mint and say, "I need more money; print some more." The average household does not have that luxury; it has to deal with what it earns. If households began printing its own money then we would have some serious financial problems (study the history of the South during the Civil War to see the validity of this claim).
Some time ago I made the argument that the government, by definition, does not turn a profit. So, does the claim that Washington should not rack up large amounts of debt contradict this argument because if Washington, by definition, does not turn a profit how can it not help but go into debt? I think the answer to this question is simple: government should work with the money it receives via taxes, no more, no less. Essentially I believe the government should break even. Is this realistic? A part of me says, "No", because it does sound extremely idealistic. But I believe that Washington should not act any different from the rest of America when it comes to spending practices. Commonsense says, "Spend within your means." I believe the same should hold true for Washington.