<p>Not quite: </p>
<p>Remember, one of the reasons why big Bush lost the election was because of a poor economy (a recession was underway during that period). Also the federal spending cut and the tax cuts occured under Clinton when fear of a further increase in the deficit was spreading (here is the speech: <a href="http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/021793-speech-by-president-address-to-joint-session-of-congress-as-delivered.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/021793-speech-by-president-address-to-joint-session-of-congress-as-delivered.htm</a>. Clinton was helped by the economy during the elections but because it was poor not because it was good (which does make sense does it?)</p>
<p>Excuse the disgression from the topic, my initial post was regarding the fact that Reagan didn't decrease federal spending (where we should be on the same page as they are verifiable numbers instead of arguing about the attributes of the entire economy).</p>