# Obama - the lowest spending POTUS since Coolidge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339 "2012-06-07T01:05:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/41 "2012-06-07T18:19:59Z")
[QUOTE=nate] I don’t know what you were expecting Obama to do… The budget doesn’t authorize spending. Bush submitted a ~$3.1T budget in for FY09 and the truth is, Obama gets blamed for it because he was in office in FY09 and signed the spending bills. That’s why when most pundits say “Spending UNDER Obama has risen x%” (where x% includes FY09 spending), while technically true, it is a bit misleading. [/QUOTE] The only misleading part is that the President has only a tangential impact on the budget…Congress is the ones who control the purse strings. However, spending has increased since 2009, so if you are going to blame the President for increases then he’d be to blame for them. I linked to a spending cite earlier if you want to go look for yourself. -XT ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/42 "2012-06-07T22:57:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well said. And I intentionally left your post in its entirety with the hopes that fewer people will be able tot ignore it. Sorry to see your hopes dashed. (((crickets))) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/43 "2012-06-08T19:03:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Really? How can you use statistics to prove Romney’s claim that “spending under Obama has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.” > > I don’t see how that can be made true without blatantly lying. Here’s an example. For the first 19 years of your marriage, your wife spends $100 per month on clothing. In the 20th year, she spends $200 per month. In the 21st year, she spends $5000 per month on clothing. In the 22nd year, she spends $5010 per month on clothing. When you tell her that her clothing expenditures are getting out of hand, is it legitimate for her to prove her fiscal responsibility by saying that her clothing budget only increased by a mere 0.2% when previously it increased by 100% and 5000%? This is why you can manipulate numbers to say anything. Obama the lowest spending President since Coolidge? The premise is laughable, but some statistician somewhere found a way! ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/44 "2012-06-08T19:51:16Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here’s an example. For the first 19 years of your marriage, your wife spends $100 per month on clothing. In the 20th year, she spends $200 per month. In the 21st year, she spends $5000 per month on clothing. In the 22nd year, she spends $5010 per month on clothing. … > > This is why you can manipulate numbers to say anything. Which is what you have done. The numbers you have invented out of whole cloth are gross distortions of what is actually being debated here. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/45 "2012-06-08T20:13:51Z")
Out of curiosity, how much significance should be attached to “Obama signed it” ? Did Bush43 sign a 2001 budget that was mostly a Clinton product? Did Clinton sign a 1993 budget that was mostly a Bush41 product? I don’t know. What happens if a president _doesn’t_ sign a budget prepared by his predecessor? Government shutdown? Does he have to veto it? If he doesn’t sign it for ten days, does it go into effect anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/46 "2012-06-08T20:15:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What happens if a president _doesn’t_ sign a budget prepared by his predecessor? Government shutdown? [Continuing resolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/47 "2012-06-08T20:20:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What happens if a president _doesn’t_ sign a budget prepared by his predecessor? Government shutdown? Does he have to veto it? If he doesn’t sign it for ten days, does it go into effect anyway? It’s a law like any other. The exact same procedures apply. If an act providing for the budget of the United States isn’t enacted, the government shuts down. ETA: I should say the budget is typically _several_ laws, not just one. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > [Continuing resolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution) A continuing resolution is a law, meaning that if a president refused to sign it, it could be subject to a pocket veto. In which case the government would shut down. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/48 "2012-06-08T21:01:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Out of curiosity, how much significance should be attached to “Obama signed it” ? Did Bush43 sign a 2001 budget that was mostly a Clinton product? Did Clinton sign a 1993 budget that was mostly a Bush41 product? I don’t know. > > What happens if a president _doesn’t_ sign a budget prepared by his predecessor? Government shutdown? Does he have to veto it? If he doesn’t sign it for ten days, does it go into effect anyway? Bush did not submit a 2009 budget. Actually Clinton and Bush 41 did not submit budgets for the transition year either. There was a rule change in 1990 that allows the outgoing Prez to leave the budget submission to the incoming Prez. Before then, the outgoing Prez had to submit a budget and the incoming Prez could submit revisions. See [this document](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20752.pdf) for an overview. (Warning PDF) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/49 "2012-06-08T22:41:09Z")
You are off by a year. Bush did indeed submit a 2009 budget in February 2008. He did not submit a 2010 budget before leaving office in January 2009. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/50 "2012-06-08T23:00:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You are off by a year. Bush did indeed submit a 2009 budget in February 2008. He did not submit a 2010 budget before leaving office in January 2009. :smack: I didn’t see those numbers in paretheses. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/51 "2012-06-09T16:12:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > When you tell her that her clothing expenditures are getting out of hand… Do you do this before or after you tell her to fetch your slippers and pipe and get dinner on the table? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/52 "2012-06-10T18:33:29Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > I perused the thread and don’t see a coherent argument for you. Federal spending in Bush’s last fy was 3.52 trillion and it is barely above that now. > > I will source if you like. (the CBO). > [@yorick73](#): > > I really find it hard to believe that anyone can really buy into this nonsense. This one is easy to dismiss without even thinking too much. **Linden** , since you didn’t think my argument was coherent let me break it down and you are free to dispute the points. Well, do you still find my argument incoherent or have you realized how ridiculous this argument is? I assume you now realize the article was BS or you have just lost interest in your own thread. ---
**Author:** ![VegasReno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/94ad74/32.png) [@VegasReno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VegasReno)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/53 "2012-06-11T01:54:55Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Here’s a graph on federal, state and local spending under Obama: > > [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/federal-reserve-economic-data-chart-real-government-spending-obama-recovery.php](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/federal-reserve-economic-data-chart-real-government-spending-obama-recovery.php) Completely dishonest source to cite… including state and local is poppycock. You do realize that most states in this country have a balanced budget amendment… as in the vast majority… when revenues went down… they have little choice… cut spending or raise taxes… very few went with the raising taxes route during a recession. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/54 "2012-06-18T03:18:49Z")
[PolitiFact rates Obama’s low-spending claim “Mostly True.”](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/) > [@](#): > > So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase – in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account. > > Bottom line: The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years” is very close to accurate. > > **Explaining the results** > > So why the disconnect between Obama’s image as a big spender and the reality of how much federal spending has actually grown? > > First, Obama’s record on debt is a lot less flattering than is his record on federal government spending. During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows. > > Second, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. > > Third, the aging of the baby boomers has driven a rise in entitlement spending that is masking cuts Obama and the GOP Congress have made, and have promised to make, in discretionary spending. Using outlays as the unit of measurement, as Nutting and the Facebook post have done, means focusing on money already spent. It does not take into account future spending that’s been committed to but not yet carried out. > > And finally, many Americans associate Obama with the high-profile legislative activities of his first year or two, when initiatives such as the stimulus sent spending upward the fastest. Since then, spending has slowed, thanks in part to spending cuts pushed by congressional Republicans. > > Which brings us to another important issue: The president is not all-powerful, so his record on spending was accomplished in collaboration with congressional Republicans. > > **Our ruling** > > The Facebook post says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has “accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” because it’s actually risen “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.” > > Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/55 "2012-06-18T05:07:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [PolitiFact rates Obama’s low-spending claim “Mostly True.”](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/) Reread posts 32 and 36. Yes, it is technically true that the year-to-year increase is the lowest in some time. This is due to the HUGE increase in 2009 from one-time spending. Here’s an easy way to explain it. Let’s say we spent 100 Trillion in 2009 to save the economy. The next year we spend exactly 100 trillion for an increase of 0.0%. Sure, the rate has not increased at all. There was an artificial spike in spending in 2009 and we are still spending at that inflated amount or slightly higher even though we are not funding all that one-time spending anymore. Make sense? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/56 "2012-06-18T05:30:16Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Reread posts 32 and 36. Yes, it is technically true that the year-to-year increase is the lowest in some time. This is due to the HUGE increase in 2009 from one-time spending. > > Here’s an easy way to explain it. Let’s say we spent 100 Trillion in 2009 to save the economy. The next year we spend exactly 100 trillion for an increase of 0.0%. Sure, the rate has not increased at all. There was an artificial spike in spending in 2009 and we are still spending at that inflated amount or slightly higher even though we are not funding all that one-time spending anymore. Make sense? [PolitiFact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/) takes that into account: > [@](#): > > Using and slightly tweaking Nutting’s methodology, we recalculated spending increases under each president back to Dwight Eisenhower and produced tables ranking the presidents from highest spenders to lowest spenders. By contrast, both the Fact Checker and the AP zeroed in on one narrower (and admittedly crucial) data point – how to divide the responsibility between George W. Bush and Obama for the spending that occurred in fiscal year 2009, when spending rose fastest. > > How you divide the spending between Bush and Obama for fiscal 2009 only makes a difference to our ruling if the shifts move Obama significantly up or down our rankings. Do they? > > Nutting attributed spending from the first year of every presidential term to the previous administration, arguing that every new president starts their term four months into a fiscal year begun under their predecessor. Historically, this has not been a particularly controversial approach, and even some of Nutting’s critics we spoke to agreed that it’s not a bad rule of thumb. > > But fiscal year 2009 was special because it came amid an economic and financial free fall that drove the nation’s leaders to spend a lot more than they ordinarily would. Nutting did take these factors into account, but not to the extent that some critics think is needed. Nutting shifted $140 billion in fiscal 2009 spending from two of Obama’s signature programs – the economic stimulus package and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program – out of Bush’s column and into Obama’s. He also shifted excess spending beyond what Bush would have spent from the appropriations bills signed by Obama in 2009. > > A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small. > > We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s – the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP – produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer. > > That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last. > > When we encounter a compound claim such as this one, we consider the accuracy of each part separately. During our internal discussions, we give a preliminary rating to each half of a claim, then average them to produce our final, published rating. > > Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single “correct” way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim – that Obama’s spending has risen “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years” – strikes us as Half True. > > Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has “accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.” Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/57 "2012-06-18T05:49:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [PolitiFact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/) takes that into account: The point remains the same. Regardless of who authorized all the one time spending it was exactly that…one time spending. Even in Bush authorized the Obama stimulus the point would be the same. It was supposed to be one-time spending. Continuing to spend at that same level is, technically, not increasing the spending level but that is neither here nor there. That one-time spending should not have been included in prior year spending and the total spent should have decreased from 2009 levels. The artificial spike in spending should have returned to normal the following year but it did not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/58 "2012-06-18T06:00:01Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The point remains the same. Regardless of who authorized all the one time spending it was exactly that…one time spending. Even in Bush authorized the Obama stimulus the point would be the same. It was supposed to be one-time spending. Continuing to spend at that same level is, technically, not increasing the spending level but that is neither here nor there. That one-time spending should not have been included in prior year spending and the total spent should have decreased from 2009 levels. The artificial spike in spending should have returned to normal the following year but it did not. The point remains the same: **Even allowing for that,** Obama is a low-spending POTUS. **Too** low-spending for the country’s good, but politics is the art of the possible, and the Pubs control the House. And **why** should that “artificial spike” have been “returned to normal the following year” anyway? The economy would be much better now if the USG had followed [Paul Krugman’s advice](http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774) and spent a whole lot more. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/59 "2012-06-18T06:20:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The point remains the same: **Even allowing for that,** Obama is a low-spending POTUS. **Too** low-spending for the country’s good, but politics is the art of the possible, and the Pubs control the House. And **why** should that “artificial spike” have been “returned to normal the following year” anyway? The economy would be much better now if the USG had followed [Paul Krugman’s advice](http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774) and spent a whole lot more. You’re making my point for me. Just because you feel that the one-time spending should be continued does not change the fact that it was, indeed, one-time spending. Operating the government at those inflated levels and claiming that Obama has not increased spending is disingenuous at best. Politifact is only taking into account the fact that spending increased only slightly from 2009 levels without mentioning that the 2009 increase should not have become the new budget baseline. This is what I was attempting to explain in post 55 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/60 "2012-06-18T06:34:10Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You’re making my point for me. Just because you feel that the one-time spending should be continued does not change the fact that it was, indeed, one-time spending. Operating the government at those inflated levels and claiming that Obama has not increased spending is disingenuous at best. :rolleyes: **Read for comprehension, for Og’s sake!** > [@](#): > > That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last. > > \ > > Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single “correct” way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim – that Obama’s spending has risen “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years” – strikes us as Half True. > > Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has “accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.” Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True. That makes Obama a low-spending POTUS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339.md?page=4)