But the president did deliver a few signals over the past several months and year, perhaps most strongly in his State of the Union address in January when he said, "But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."  That is what the dispute over the cuts are about -- a serious effort to curb spending which, yes, means a government that begins to live within its means. We have yet to see a cut that is not disputed, but we need to keep in mind, if we can't legitimately cut x program or y program, without threats and vetoes, we will never be able to seriously move our government to live within its means.  We either cut or we do not. There are no other options. So did the president mean what he said in his State of the Union? Or was it just lip service?  Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He is an affiliated professor at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute:  We came awfully close to shutting down the government. And why? On February 2 House Republicans called for cutting $32 billion from current spending.  Reliable reports I received in the final stages of the negotiation showed that Democrats were willing to accept $38 billion in cuts. That's nearly 120% of what the GOP went into the negotiations seeking. And yet, for much of the day, Speaker John Boehner wouldn't take yes for an answer.
A last-minute agreement averted a government shutdown late Friday, but analysts say the high-stakes standoff revealed persistent issues that Washington still must address. CNN Opinion asked a number