Agreed.
Although I wouldn't attribute it to the right/left divide as much as the incentives baked into the structure of governance. There's very little benefit for a self-interested politician to make meaningful spending cuts. This leaves reallocations and spending increases on the table.
The Atlantic's editorial policy is somewhat illustrative of this uniparty phenomenon. The top editors have been foreign policy hawks advocating for increased military spending, while many of the lower tiered authors will appeal for increased social spending. There's something for everyone, as long as follows from the primacy of the state.
Another recent submission lamented the fall of Rome, offering predictable doom over token efforts at privatization. As mentioned previously, cuts are better understood as reallocations to other programs. Rome and Caeserism was celebrated. Decentralization was demonized. I found this a bit strange, because from the other corner of The Atlantic's mouth, I'm repeatedly warned about the dangerous rise of a new autocrat.