[lethain]

When done tactically, government spending can lead to smaller government. The long term goal for much of the right's spending agenda is to create an environment where the government is forced to become smaller via debt fueled program slashing. Defense spending is particularly good for this, because there is abundant rhetoric for attacking someone who reduces (i.e. "cuts") defense funding.

[TomOfTTB]

To me that makes no sense. The way I see it there are two reasons for small government.

First Reason: To save money. But in this sense the plan obviously fails because to even get to the point of spending cuts we have to use all our Government's available financial resources.

Second Reason: To empower the Private Sector. But if the Government has gotten to the point where they've exhausted the majority of their financial resources they are going to be forced to levy high taxes to compensate. That places a burden on businesses and makes them look to incorporating in other countries (just as most look to incorporate out side of California now). So it doesn't empower the private sector it all but destroys it.

Given the two points above I don't see how your thesis makes sense. It seems that you're so focused on small government that you've forgotten the reasons you'd want it in the first place.

[lethain]

You've mistaken me for my argument a bit there. The right's fiscal philosophy is based on the idea that people who earn money deserve to keep it. People who don't earn money shouldn't be re-appropriated money from those who do. In the long term that is achieved by having a smaller, less expensive government.

It is not the case that the government must raise taxes when they exhaust their resources, the other option--the desirable outcome from small government advocates--is that they slash services and oversight to an extent that is politically impossible under other circumstances.

Politics is not motivated purely by reason, but also by the different parties are motivated by philosophical ideals.