Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy.
It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.
Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools.
Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers.
The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
So benefits i guess? Or pensions? Sounds like you want the government to only spend money on capital projects which is reasonable, but it'll be very difficult to get there from here, given all the benefits/transfers that governments engage in.
>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...
Paper from 2022 on the topic:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20...
Wikipage with just economic indicators by party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...