Scaling with GDP, rather than population, implies that government spending is scaling with the country's ability to provide services commensurate with prosperity.
You are literally just suggesting we spend more no matter what. Obviously, there is a massive difference in types of spending right? And we have an incredible amount of bad spending. In fact, in places like public education and health, we continue to spend more to get worse outcomes.
You're making large, sweeping generalizations and most of the positions espoused are more political than scientific.
Conservatively, 20% of the nation's wealth goes to the top 1%. The people who need it the least.
I can buy the argument that we could be more effective with spending, but not with the idea that we need less wealth transfer from rich to poor.
You understand that firing a program manager doesn't de-obligate the spending of the program he managed, right? Because I'm seeing a lot of people online who don't seem to grasp that.
This is only true if the value of government services increases over time and not just their cost. If GDP doubles and the government then spends twice as many real dollars to provide the same level of services as before, all you've done is cut efficiency in half.