What is "Starve the Beast"? Who started it and what has been the result?

Yes, it was conceived in the late 70’s although not given the name until 1985 by the WSJ. "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of American conservatives, including the last three Republican presidents, to cut taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to create a fiscal budget crisis that would then force the federal government to reduce spending. The term "beast" refers to the government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare and public schools. The proponents of the starve-the-beast strategy have never advocated cuts in military, weapons, or prisons spending.

Prior to the 1930’s running deficits in the federal budget was anathema to the psyche of Americans and especially business interests as represented by Republicans. The great depression introduced Keynsian economics which advocated deficits as medicine for economic recessions and thereby changed attitudes toward deficits as now not always being a bad thing. From WW2 to 1980, Republicans, being fiscally responsible, advocated tax increases at any time the budget was in deficit except those brief periods of recession, as did Democrats, and therefor, to that point, the federal debt continued to decrease in real dollar terms. The differences between the parties were mainly the expansion of government to cover social programs as advocated by the Democrats verses shrinking government programs as advocated by Republicans. But then something changed fundamentally.

California Prop 13 in 1978 revealed the tremendous populist anger against taxation. Since the Republican party was losing membership and stagnating, new conservatives saw an opportunity to harness such anger in order to win membership and political power. Tax cuts were not only popular, they could be justified as necessary to reduce the size of “gov’ment”.

On July 14, 1978, economist Alan Greenspan gave testimony to the U.S. Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." The metaphor was too simplistic to account for the spending of a kid who could borrow without near-term or medium-term limit.

The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush's administration were attempts to "starve the beast." It worked too well. We now have the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, and should European nations default on their debt, the crisis may even surpass the 1930’s. The United States has little choice now but to reduce expenditures to welfare, Social Security, Medicare and public schools, but probably must also cut military, weapons, and prisons spending as well.

Amazingly, this crisis was created deliberately and under the radar of most Americans.

False. It's Reagan era, the 80s. The idea is that you leave the government no choice but to reduce social spending, by cutting taxes and maintaining or even raising military and penal spending. Since only a fiscal crisis will create sufficient desperation to take unpopular benefit cutting measures, the idea is to deliberately create a fiscal crisis that leaves no alternative. So far the result has only been an explosive growth in debt.

it's an old expression, and it means to deprive a person or entity of the resources necessary to continue to function