Yes. He did all he could to slow the expansion of government in the face of a hostile Congress. He cut domestic discretionary spending more than any other president, even though he only got half of the cuts that he wanted. He wasn't perfect, but he's as small-government a president we've had at least since Coolidge.
Since when was the military not part of the government? :2wave:
"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green
According to this:
AEI - Papers
Reagan's net cuts are chump change compared to other presidents.
By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.
Volume VI said:In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.
The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
True. Actually, the best fical conservative was Bill Clinton. I don't know what so hard with reduce spending. It's not like there isn't places to cut.
an early example of 'compassionate' conservatism from uncle ronnie... During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan endorsed the Kemp-Roth tax cut, but he also insisted that he would sharply cut government spending. Upon taking office in 1981, he followed through on this promise and asked Congress for spending cuts as well as tax cuts (White House 1981). However, Reagan was unwilling to hold his tax cuts hostage to congressional inaction on spending. In explaining why tax cuts should precede spending cuts, he said that the former would pave the way for the latter, as the starve-the-beast theory posited. In a national television address on February 5, 1981, Reagan explained: “Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance” ...
Yes I heard a guy describing the importance of the Laffer curve on BBC World Service desrcie how the best supply sider in government had been Clinton. he was quite caustic as to Clinton the person but clear that Clinton the conservative was a good thing to a right wing economist.
Reagan talked the talk but didn't walk it. Ultimately he was a big government guy who hated social dependency and confused the two issues. Thatcher was the same.
Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.
The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
No. He temporarily increased
So then he moved money around to suit his needs. That is still part of the budget whether your write it in the invisible ink of defence spending or not. If instead of paying 600$ for your rent you spend $530 and then use $90 dollars to pay for cable, you're not actually spending less.
You said he didn't cut domestic spending though. I was just correcting you.
So then you don't consider national defence to be domestic spending.
By most definitions, it isn't. If it makes you feel better, though, just replace "domestic" with "non-defense".
So then it's just a feel good name for spending you don't want to consider when making the final budget? For example. Say your monthly rent and phone bill are together $900. However this month you only pay $820 because you have to pay a $190 parking ticket. Can you say you've lowered your "domestic spending" and thus have become fiscally conservative?
Dav and I have been round and round on this. My opinion is that saying that you cut spending, except for the spending you like, and overall increased spending, and massively increased the deficit, then you are not a fiscal conservative. This whole idea that you can count only the spending that supports your claim, while ignoring the rest is a copout to my mind.
Well we all know that it's not really spending if it is only temporary spending.
Or spending for something we support.
The main difference is that his military spending was intended to be temporary, while welfare spending never is.
By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level
and contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.
That's not to mention that, as I already said, he only got half of the cuts he wanted.
Or spending for something we support.