The idea in the OP is a nonsense contention of course which defies the charitable principle that we must take ideas seriously and characterise them in their most robust and defensible form. Only the weak-minded attack ideas in their inferior genus, whether that means a real poor-man version of something or a confected strawman.
The only reason a serious minded person might propose such a silly idea is if they are genuinely confused about liberalism. For liberalism is a big tent, which admits of many mutually incompatible visions of a good life and human flourishing. This naturally means it contains voices calling for mutually incompatible programs which might necessitate trade-offs in spending. That has nothing to do with spending for spending sake - it simply means liberalism defers to democratic process to resolve these prioritisation issues and doesn’t assign priorities from first principles.