I've heard the "economic growth" argument many times, and the underlying assumption is that if the economy becomes twice as robust, somehow we need twice as much government spending, as though it's a given that government spending should be a certain percentage of GDP.
Why?
If anything, government spending on social programs and entitlements should go down as economic health improves.
I also see no rationale for connecting things like military spending and the economy either. If the GDP doubles, where does the idea come from that more military spending is needed to cover that?
What really happens is that surpluses and increased revenues burn a hole in the pockets of politicians, and they invent new "needs" and "essential programs." This is what happened in California during the boom. Revenues skyrocketed, and by golly, so did spending.
Current Events » in reply to Cool
Growth