I'm not sure he meant it as in the political-economic philosophy of low spending across the board. Would be better put as a fiscally responsible government instead. There is no need to reduce spending across the board, but there is a need to focus spending where it's needed, instead of the gross mismanagement of public funds we see now.
Yes, agreed. There is much waste and fiscal mismanagement, and this needs to be corrected. That said, "the all government spending is bad" dogma of the extreme right is not fiscally responsible either. When infrastructure such as road systems break down in one country, companies begin to look elsewhere to invest and open shop. This hurts long-term tax revenues, job prospects, etc. The negative effect on the economy over time is far worse than not making the necessary investments. The same can be applied to R&D, the education system, etc. Steady investment is required over time, to maintain the health of the economy for the long-term. Austerity measures applied to these areas never works to improve the health of the economy, especially in the long run.
In the corporate world, a 20% reinvestment of profits into R&D, has long been considered the benchmark of maintaining the long-term health of any company that produces a technologically evolving product. When companies place too much importance on short term profitability margins, (usually to appease shareholders), at the expense of this level of reinvestment, the long-term effects on the business are almost always disastrous. This is what happened to the US consumer electronics industry in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Companies such as Scott, Fisher, Marantz, etc. all ended up going bankrupt because of this lack of investment, and were either closed or bought out by foreign companies. This didn't happen overnight, but rather was the product of years of under-investment. The austerity approach we are taking with our public systems will have similar results, if not corrected soon.
d4g