Money "creation" is often negatively associated with deficit spending while taxes are assumed to be recycled to new spending and that spending is viewed more favorably. The processes for each are not even related as tax collection destroys "money" as it enters the government sector and encounters the debt that created it.

People who understand spreadsheet accounting and sectoral balance should understand this process instinctively, but they often don't make the connections. Tax "revenue" is a misnomer when applied to new spending. It can only be used once and doesn't survive its first order process of reducing the debt from which all currency originates. This leaves all new spending as "new money" with no distinction made for revenue or deficit funding.

Debt and revenue cannot exist in the same sector of accounting. They cancel each other. Since all money is a product of debt, (beginning as a tax credit in the public sector and not becoming "money" until it is spent into the private sector) all revenue is dedicated to reducing that debt. The federal government never actually "has" money, as it doesn't need it to spend. It decrees money into existence and the Fed marks up the appropriate accounts to receive the money via keystrokes on computers.

At the same time, it marks up the debt on the Treasury's account ledger so it always reflects the number of dollars in circulation. This is not a number that the private sector is responsible to "pay off", now or in the future. It is a record of payments the government made to the private sector for resources and labor it deployed for its own use. If the "budget" were to be "balanced" all payments made for those would be clawed back by taxation, effectively stolen from the private sector economy.