This is true, and I’d say something else: the very notion that a President “increases spending” is just not true. Reagan lost many spending battles to a liberal Congress, and he horse traded with them to grow the economy, and he lowered tax rates, and he defeated the Soviet Union.
Not that a hard core libertarian rag ever thought the Soviets were a big deal in the first place.
Let’s get one thing straight — INCREASED SPENDING UNDER REAGAN IS NOT ENTIRELY HIS FAULT.
His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the subsequent federal surpluses ( To which the Gingrich congress gets greater credit than Clinton himself, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to the budget ).
His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending despite the efforts of the Tip O’Neil congress to INCREASE IT.
If Reagan’s critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993.
Reagan had to outspend the USSR in the military programs. It’s what finally brought the Commies to their knees.
So yea he outspent Carter, but at least it was money well spent.