Mithrandir X @x_mithrand87523 - Twitter Profile

Love the quote but I asked grok how much Reagan cut back government and he said: “Not much in absolute terms—overall federal spending and employment grew, the national debt roughly tripled, and the government did not shrink in the way the quote’s small-government rhetoric might suggest. Relative to the economy and in specific areas (non-defense discretionary spending and regulation), there was some restraint and roll-back. https://t.co/XXPIHmtiBN Key facts from the Reagan years (roughly fiscal 1981–1989): • Federal spending grew in nominal and real terms. Outlays rose from about $678 billion in FY 1981 to $1.14 trillion in FY 1989. Real (inflation-adjusted) growth slowed compared with the prior administration (from ~4% annual real growth under Carter to ~2.5% under Reagan), but spending still increased. As a share of GDP it started around 22–23%, peaked higher mid-decade with the recession and defense buildup, then ended near 21–22%—a modest decline relative to the economy by the end, but not a dramatic shrinkage. https://t.co/dO6G1bJlwG • Priorities shifted heavily toward defense. Defense spending rose substantially (the Cold War military buildup). Non-defense discretionary spending was constrained: it fell in real terms in the early years (by double-digit percentages from 1981 peaks in some measures) and stayed below 1981 real levels for much of the period in constant dollars. Reagan cut real budgets at multiple domestic agencies (e.g., HUD, Transportation, Agriculture in certain terms). Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and interest on the debt continued rising and were largely untouched in structural ways. https://t.co/PdKRi9ljvv • Deficits and debt exploded. Annual deficits ran high (often $150–220+ billion). Publicly held debt rose sharply as a share of GDP (from the low-to-mid 20s% range toward ~40%). Tax cuts (top rate from 70% to 28% via the 1981 and 1986 laws, plus indexing brackets) reduced the revenue share of GDP somewhat; spending restraint did not fully offset the combination of lower rates, recession effects, and higher defense outlays. https://t.co/ZGaJrFZugH • Federal workforce did not shrink overall. Civilian federal employment rose modestly (commonly cited figures move from roughly 2.9 million toward 3.1 million). Broader measures that include military and other categories also show net growth (hundreds of thousands in some tallies). Early hiring freezes had limited lasting effect. https://t.co/dO6G1bJlwG • Deregulation and other limits did occur. Reagan continued and expanded some Carter-era deregulation (oil/gas price controls ended early, plus steps on other industries). The administration reduced the growth of new rules, eliminated or eased many existing ones, and cut regulatory staffing/enforcement in areas like labor and environment. This reduced the regulatory burden relative to what a continued 1970s trajectory would have produced, even if the overall Code of Federal Regulations and agencies were not dismantled. https://t.co/XXPIHmtiBN In short: Reagan slowed the growth rate of government relative to prior trends and the economy in places, achieved real cuts in non-defense discretionary areas and some regulatory relief, and dramatically lowered marginal tax rates. He did not produce a smaller government in absolute dollars, employment, or total spending trajectory, largely because of the defense buildup, entitlement growth, congressional resistance (Democrats controlled the House throughout), and prioritization of tax cuts and military strength over deeper domestic cuts. The result was larger deficits and debt alongside a reallocation of the existing government rather than a broad scale-back. Supporters emphasize the relative restraint, economic recovery, and Cold War outcome; critics point to the expansion in debt and overall size. The record is mixed relative to the pure “limited government” ideal in the quote.“

1

0

1

94