I see. You equate the laws of physics with the "laws" of politics and economics. Just like the US budget can be balanced without tax increases? Smart.
Dream on. Love does not make effective economic policy. Rather, it's a matter of hard-minded rationality.
I'm pretty sure it actually is possible to do that. It's just to cut spending, if I understand this budget business correctly.
Besides, had we been on a system of sound money, inflation wouldn't erode the value of people's savings. Instead of pricing steadily going up, they would actually decrease, consistently (a constant amount of money and an increased amount of stuff leads to lower money prices for stuff! Amazing, right?), making programs like social security pretty much obsolete. Plus, expensive wars wouldn't be undertaken in the first place! Every big nation who has ever gone to a war has, at least temporarily, abandoned commodity money and resorted to a fiat currency. If they "tax" the people by diminishing their purchasing power in the future by means of printing money in the present, they can hide the domestic hardships of war in foreign countries to a substantial degree. Gee, it seems there wouldn't be much of a budget left to balance.
All of that is beside the point, though. Waging war against innocent peoples, conflating bystanders who have done no harm to anyone with radical terrorists, killing people without discrimination for serving a foreign army whether voluntarily or not, scuffing off murder to the side under the label of "collateral damage", pretending that global aggressiveness is justified without provocation, would be unthinkable had we been guided by sound morals. The allocation of planning processes to the few, instead of leaving it to the many, is based on a misanthropic and false idea about a supposed inadequacy of man to care for hirself and hir fellow men.
Rationality and reasoning, employed to its fullest capacity, would, indeed, probably lead us to correct conclusions about what to do. I don't see it as necessary, though. You may call me insane if you like, but it seems to me that sound reasoning leads you to the conclusion of non-aggressiveness, peace, mutual aid, charitability and compassion as the soundest of principles. When you try to go down the road of ratiocination to come up with "more perfect" ideals than this, you're missing the point, and you expose yourself to a grave risk of stumbling down the wrong path.
Or, rather, rationality, science etc. can't actually tell you what to do at all. That's one of the points of science: it's positive, descriptive, valueless. Not normative, prescriptive and value-driven. The knowledge that shooting an innocent man in a head will quite likely kill him doesn't tell you that you shouldn't. To reach that conclusion, you need to rely on sound values.
But, lucky for you and the rest of the world, some of us actually have done, and do, good, compassionate works, rationally.
I commend you for this, and I sincerely hope that you shall continue doing this. Thank you for what you have done and are doing for the world.
You're right though, I should probably incorporate rationality or something of the sort as one of the pillars in my framework. The best of intentions may very well lead to disaster if one acts in ignorance. As long as one abstains from coercion, though, misguided aid seems unlikely.