No, the government expanded during Reagan's term. That doesn't mean that Reagan was the agent who drove the expansion. In fact, it was Tip O'Neil's Dem congress that refused to cut spending. They broke agreement after agreement to cut spending, then blackmailed Reagan into signing their inflated budgets. Reagan went along because it was the only way to get the military built up to combat the Soviets. Your implication that Reagan was a partisan of bigger federal government is counterfactual.
When it comes to expanding the federal gov't, it's much more important to control the U.S. House of Reps than to control the White House. Note that the one slight pull-back in federal government expansion was when the republicans controlled Congress during Clinton's term. That doesn't make Clinton the driving force behind reducing the fed government. Clinton may have been a moderate democrat, but he dragged his feet at every turn when it came to reducing the government. It was the republican House that drove this process.
Many on this board come from communist countries. Many, such as myself, spent a lot of time living in communist or post-communist countries. I lived in the Czech Republic for a number of years, and lived a house owned by a woman whose family lost everything in the expropriations of '47 through '52. I can't imagine her being comfortable with the idea of "government interference" in the economy. Would you be willing to tell us what country you come from, and what you lost? I'm sure you would find plenty of sympathy if you put your cards on the table.
re:I can’t imagine her being comfortable with the idea of “government interference” in the economy.
Where did the author or I say that we were “comfortable with the idea of government interference”? We are both saying the complete opposite.