Unfortunately, calls to "spend less" usually end up serving as a fig leaf over a political agenda that includes massive spending from the Federal Reserve in the

Unfortunately, calls to "spend less" usually end up serving as a fig leaf over a political agenda that includes massive spending from the Federal Reserve in the form of ZIRP. The focus on "spending" has been sneakily construed to ignore the Federal Reserve, and direct the focus at legislative/executive programs trying to assuage ZIRP's economic damage. For example we'd need far less "affordable housing" assistance if the government hadn't spend decades pumping up the housing market as a Potemkin investment. Furthermore, spending more or less doesn't really have any bearing on the distribution of who taxes are collected from. Your every day W-2 worker is under the thumb of a whole slew of deductions being prohibited to them, plus surveillance databases that make their finances completely legible. So it's a bit disingenuous to imply that tax non-compliance by those already receiving preferential treatment represents some higher ideal rather than just more corruption.