But that is not the kind of thing that Reagan spent on:
Military and Social SpendingSignificantly, the Reagan military budget was increasingly "weapons- driven," meaning that it devoted a larger and larger share of budget authority to "investment" (weapons procurement, research and development, military construction, warhead production), as opposed to "consumption" (operations and maintenance, personnel, and other miscellaneous) functions.
Note that the article (written in 1986) is actually critical of Reagan. It also states that:
After securing congressional acquiescence in early 1981 to modest cuts in that program, it moved in May of that year to "reform" social security drastically. If enacted, its proposals-which included immediate 40 percent benefit reductions for early retirees, a roughly one-third reduction in disability benefits, and a variety of caps and changes in the calculation and adjustment of benefit levels-would have amounted to a 20 percent cut in the overall program, or about $200 billion over the 1982-90 period. But the proposals generated a storm of resistance (reflected in a 96-0 vote against them in the Senate), and the Administration backed away, with Reagan promising to hold off on any further suggestions until he received the report of the bipartisan National Com- mission on Social Security Reform due at the end of 1982. Nevertheless, in May 1982 the Administration endorsed a Senate proposal for $4o billion in benefits cuts over FY 1983-85. This too was beaten back.In other words, Reagan did not get the spending cuts that he wanted.Overall, the Administration sought 60 percent cuts in the discretionary grant programs closely associated with the Great Society, and roughly 30 percent cuts in low-income assistance payments. With most of the action taking place in 1981, Congress provided it with three-quarters of what was sought on the first group of programs and about a third of what was sought on the second.