Let's look at some facts here:
Was Bush's tax cuts excessive? Clearly yes. The graph below shows U.S. government revenue as a % of GDP. On average, governent revenue hovers around the 18% mark (up from 14-16% before a lot of the social benefits came in) Looking historically, whenever revenue went above 19%, a recession soon followed.
Government revenue skyrocketed during the Clinton presidency, almost to 21%. Clearly this was too high, and taxation must be cut, which GWB did. But he cut it too much, although this is partially understandable due to the bubble bursting in 2001. Had 9/11 not happened, and had the tech industry not melted down, the tax cuts probably would have landed around 18% of GDP (right where it should be), rather than undershooting to just under 16%.
Future projections show revenue getting back into a healthier range during Bush's second term, but I would not mind seeing a minor adjustment upwards towards 18-18.5% in 2009. It's POSSIBLE that good economic growth might take care of that automatically, without the need for legislation.
The most important problem is expenditures, which must be hauled back so that federal expenditures are no more than 18% or so of GDP (again, any higher becomes dangerous). Right now, they are hovering around 20%.
All in all, taxation should be MILDLY adjusted upwards (a small increase in the top income tax bracket should be enough), but expenditures must be cut strongly, by 10% at least.
With Kerry and Bush both talking about huge new programs (Although Kerry much more than Bush), voters should be telling them to stop new expenditures instead, and to haul back on existing programs.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.