I’d say it’s a very reasonable conclusion that would be justified were it not for the migration of wealth. Austerity (as seen in Europe’s sluggish recovery post-2008) prolongs recession while spending stimulated recovery here (and again after 2020-21) but while consumer spending has been robust broadly here - it’s also shown a lack of spending in proportion to wealth in the highest income brackets being a larger issue. The economy is growing but investment and relative wage growth has not. Wages have been going up yes, but not enough to offset inflation.
The argument should be about who has most benefitted from growth and how to best stimulate economic growth where it’s needed.
The article is basically saying since things are pretty good now the government should save money for a rainy day instead of spending which ignores (a) the economic benefits of smart spending on infrastructure which creates jobs and improves stuff like ports and highways and (b) that wealth is there but not spread around sufficiently so people with millions now have billions and most people are still struggling.
Ironically similar in some ways to the 1920’s and….not anxious to see how that turned out happening again.