I'm not saying it's a wash. I'm saying that the economic impact of each dollar of federal spending isn't the same, hence looking at simply the size of the budget isn't a good criterion. E.g. I'd much rather have a government with a $3.8 trillion budget, $2 trillion are transfer payments, then one with a $3 trillion budget, where only $500 billion are transfer payments.
For the last 40 years (leaving aside the spike caused by the response to the repression), federal expenditures as a percentage of GDP have been around 20% of GDP: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxoutlaysxgdp.htm. During that period, discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen. That's not consistent with a narrative that the government has kept growing this whole time.
For the last 40 years (leaving aside the spike caused by the response to the repression), federal expenditures as a percentage of GDP have been around 20% of GDP: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxoutlaysxgdp.htm. During that period, discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen. That's not consistent with a narrative that the government has kept growing this whole time.