Don Boudreaux is exactly right (savor that one - it's not said often here) that Hoover did not cut spending.
Nevertheless, a Hoover analogy is perfect for our situation on the eve of the economic stupidity that is the sequester. As many have been frantically exclaiming, there's not a lot of budget cutting if your reference point is spending in the recent past. All cuts are relative to a baseline. So like Hoover we're not cutting per se but we're imposing substantial austerity on the economy just when it's starting to look fragile. Why? Because in our case government spending is being pushed well below trend growth. I'm not sure what trend growth in Hoover's case looked like (I do know his budgets came in under Harding's - so I'm not sure why Tom Woods loves Harding so much but mocks Hoover), but they were definitely below the level that would be consistent with full employment.
I have Hoover's spending increases below. The early 1930s was a period of monetary and fiscal austerity. Congress is making the same mistake today. Who cares if spending ticks up a little bit relative to last year? Look at what it's doing relative to some counterfactual that actually matters in an economic sense rather than a political talking point sense.