Yes you can see, the beast has been horribly starved.
Spending on services that are multipliers of productivity is very different than spending on the military, for example. Spending on public services that improves citizens' life like healthcare, parks, schools, culture, easiness of bureaucracy (e.g.: permits for construction, licencing of activities, etc.) is a completely different beast than spending on politicians benefits, military drills, and so on.
Don't really understand your deflection and tone, it was completely uncalled for and doesn't at all address the point of my comment. Please, don't do that here on HN, I come here to foster intelligent and interesting discussions, not to read mindless hot takes and deflections.
If you don't understand something, you admit what you say below is a lie.
> it was completely uncalled for and doesn't at all address the point of my comment
Here is a learning opportunity. If you don't understand something, do not just shortcut to believing it was uncalled for. The fact you don't understand makes it clear you don't know whether it addresses your point.
Yes. The strategy is known as "starve the beast" [1] and it is pursued with ferocious determination by its proponents. The goal is to create some kind of minimal government libertarian paradise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast