The others answered you pretty well. My comment speaks instead to this recital, which is incorrect and thus undermines the rest of your argument.
Inflation in the US was averaging around 2% since 2008 (https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/inflation-rates.php), and 2% is generally considered healthy (https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/5D58E72F066A4DBDA80BBA65...).
"less government spending" doesn't address the pooled-up liquidity in the economy; it just addresses government spending. Hence the need for the scalpel (finely targeted taxes)... or in the absence of such, the blunt instrument (broadly-impactful rates).
They both extract money, but one's specific to things such as luxury goods, gas-powered vehicles over a certain weight, homes over a certain size or cost relative to local income, a tax per stock trade, whatever makes sense, whereas the other... not so much. Targeted taxes without an increase in spending would result in a net reduction in the budget deficit or even potentially a budget surplus, which then is essentially how the money is removed from circulation. And without using the mallet, businesses can continue to grow in a cheap-money environment.
I'm not an economist; I've just absorbed a lot from working in FIs in the past. But there's probably an economist here who can affirm or debunk what I just put forward.