# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/141 "2012-06-21T00:31:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What are you talking about? The outlays from 2009 to 2011 are roughly $600 billion higher. Are you talking about being 1/3 of the way to the deficit in the last few years? You’re aware that increased spending is only responsible for a fraction of the deficit, right? You said 2008-2011. You also said 610 billion _per year_. And, yes, I’m fully aware that the deficit is caused by a combination of spending and revenue. > [@Ravenman](#): > > See my earlier comments about budget authority and outlays. Just look up the proper chart on the document I linked to, and you will see how the outlays are actually occuring. Outlays over time does not constitute an increase to the agency’s budget. > > For example: it takes most of a decade to build an aircraft carrier. If a new carrier is funded in 2013, the money will be spent over the next five to seven years. That does not mean that a carrier funded in 2013 has increased the defense budget in 2014, 2015, or whatever year the spending actually occurs. Yes, I realize that. My point is that the 2010 budget and 2011 budgets don’t accurately reflect spending by each agency. I think the budgeted amount for each year needs to be added to the stimulus money allocated in 2009. For instance, if the 2010 budget allocates 20 billion for a department and they have 5 billion in stimulus carry-over, then the budget does not reflect what they actually spend. What I’m saying is that the 2010 budget is almost the same size as 2009. All the stimulus money shows up in the budgets of individual agencies in 2009. The budgets of individual agencies look smaller than their allocated 2010 (budget + surplus carry-over) spending. It would seem to give the impression that spending is much lower than it actually is. ---
**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 21, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/142 "2012-06-21T02:21:40Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You said 2008-2011. You also said 610 billion _per year_. Ah. I misunderstood you in the previous post. That $600 billion is the increase between total spending in 2008 and the total spending in 2011. That isn’t a third of anything, that’s the full change between those two years that are being compared. > [@](#): > > I think the budgeted amount for each year needs to be added to the stimulus money allocated in 2009. For instance, if the 2010 budget allocates 20 billion for a department and they have 5 billion in stimulus carry-over, then the budget does not reflect what they actually spend. Once again, you are mixing apples and oranges. The President’s budget only requests new Budget Authority. Previously appropriated funds are old Budget Authority. There’s no sense in a budget request asking for funds already made available by law. However, if you look at the proper charts in the tables I linked to, they will display the actual outlays - the expenditure of BA - in the years that it occurs. > [@](#): > > It would seem to give the impression that spending is much lower than it actually is. The tables I have been referencing that compare 2008 and 2011 are reflections of the money that was actually spent in those years. If you think that those figures give the impression that spending is lower than you think it is, then your assumption that spending is increasing at a rapid rate is what is in error. Don’t blame the data for not supporting your preordained opinion. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/143 "2012-06-21T19:15:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Ah. I misunderstood you in the previous post. That $600 billion is the increase between total spending in 2008 and the total spending in 2011. That isn’t a third of anything, that’s the full change between those two years that are being compared. Does that number have any signficance? 600 billion extra in 2011 does not take the 2010 increase into account (or the 2009 increase minus stimulus). Those numbers should be added together for your calculation to make sense. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Once again, you are mixing apples and oranges. The President’s budget only requests new Budget Authority. Previously appropriated funds are old Budget Authority. There’s no sense in a budget request asking for funds already made available by law. However, if you look at the proper charts in the tables I linked to, they will display the actual outlays - the expenditure of BA - in the years that it occurs. You are correct. I found the correct charts for agency outlays on page 82 and 83. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The tables I have been referencing that compare 2008 and 2011 are reflections of the money that was actually spent in those years. The yearly outlays for individual agencies is much more informative as it is clear from that chart that spending increases unabated in 2010 and 2011 for the majority of agencies. Of course this spending includes, as you mentioned, previously allocated multi-year and no-year funds as well as, presumably, stimulus funds. > [@Ravenman](#): > > If you think that those figures give the impression that spending is lower than you think it is, then your assumption that spending is increasing at a rapid rate is what is in error. Don’t blame the data for not supporting your preordained opinion. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was not suggesting that spending is lower than I thought. I fully realize that the amount of money spent would be identical either way. I was suggesting, incorrectly due to the chart I was looking at, that the budgeted money does not represent the total spent in that year. As a result the figure shown would be inaccurate and would suggest lower yearly spending per agency. Table 4-1 shows the yearly spending per agency and it is clear that spending did not “peak” in 2009 and go down…that stimulus money is funding many agencies for a number of years on top of their yearly budgets (in addition to the aformentioned multi-year and no-year money). Remember, though, that Obama’s proposed budgets would have increased spending quite a bit more than we are currently experiencing. Add to that the increased spending for “temporary” programs such as subsidizing health coverage for the unemployed, aid to state and local governments, expansion of EITC, etc. which may not be temporary in the end. Today’s benefit can very easily become tomorrow’s entitlement. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/144 "2012-06-22T13:42:24Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was not suggesting that spending is lower than I thought. I fully realize that the amount of money spent would be identical either way. I was suggesting, incorrectly due to the chart I was looking at, that the budgeted money does not represent the total spent in that year. As a result the figure shown would be inaccurate and would suggest lower yearly spending per agency. Table 4-1 shows the yearly spending per agency and it is clear that spending did not “peak” in 2009 and go down…that stimulus money is funding many agencies for a number of years on top of their yearly budgets (in addition to the aformentioned multi-year and no-year money). So, in summary, do you see that the outlays for agencies in the years following 2009 include spending that was part of the 2009 stimulus and that the yearly budgets for the agencies have not been raised by any appreciable amount? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339/145 "2012-06-22T14:17:00Z")
> [@nate](#): > > So, in summary, do you see that the outlays for agencies in the years following 2009 include spending that was part of the 2009 stimulus and that the yearly budgets for the agencies have not been raised by any appreciable amount? I think that remains to be seen. All we have at this point are estimates. There would be no need to raise the budgeted amount of each agency if they are being supplemented with stimulus money. Estimates are, as I’m sure you know, unreliable at best. Only time will tell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-the-lowest-spending-potus-since-coolidge/624339.md?page=7)