It does certainly matter that the surplus money was and is being spent. The whole idea of the 1983 reform was to save to lessen the burden on future taxpayers. It only doesn't matter if you assume that there was no choice but to spend more than the general fund received in taxes. But even then you could have reported the annual balance in a way that corresponded in the change in the national debt. Most people wouldn't consider borrowed money as income.
I understand that it's important in a macro economic sense how much the government take from the private markets. But that information would hardly be lost on Wall Street bond traders if by reporting the budget as I recommend. But the way we describe the budget does have an effect on the public debate. The born-again balanced budgeteers will have a much more difficult time spending when we our fiscal situation is described as a deficit rather than a surplus.
