[jagrmeister]

You've changed your argument. Here is what you said initially: "He lowered discretionary spending in his first three years in office." That is not supported by either chart. But it's clear Reagan had a better record on addressing non-defense discretionary spending than Bush.

[Reagan Man]

I haven't changed my argument. The debate was about whether PresReagan cut federal spending and the answer is, yes he did cut federal spending. PresReagan cut federal spending by lowering discretionary spending. Specifically, non-military discretionary spending. Both charts and both articles specifically talk about Reagan reducing government spending. Period. You're engaging in sophistry. In both charts, the minuses indicate reductions in spending.

Further, here's what it says in the link you provided to RushLimbaugh.com.

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and a number of Republicans insist they're still the party of Ronald Reagan and smaller government. Well, there's no better way to test that claim than this direct comparison. Example: In Reagan's first three years, spending on energy went down 42.5%; in the first three years of the Bush administration, spending on energy went up 19%. Reagan sent real discretionary spending on "Education, Training, Employment and Social Services" down 32.6%; Bush sent it up 26.8%. On health (before the clamor for national nanny care) Reagan, down 15.6%; Bush up 36.8%. General government went up 4.2% in Reagan's first three years; under Bush, it went up 29.1%. You can say you're Reaganesque all you want; the numbers disagree.