Because in my dictionary, “military” is not the same thing as “government.” From Congressional Quarterly:
Bush Budget Trims Domestic Programs, Seeks $245 Billion for War
By Steven T. Dennis and Liriel Higa, CQ Staff

President Bush’s $2.9 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2008 squeezes Medicare and other domestic programs in favor of tax cuts and a continued buildup in military spending.

The budget sent to Congress Monday proposes significant policy changes to restrain Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement spending and a near-freeze in domestic discretionary spending as part of a plan to balance the budget by fiscal 2012.

War costs would continue to mount, with Bush seeking an additional $245 billion for fiscal 2008 and the remainder of fiscal 2007. And the regular budget for the Department of Defense would climb by 11 percent to $481.4 billion.

The president’s proposed budget, the first of his tenure to face a Democratic-controlled Congress, includes $929.8 billion in discretionary spending, up $57 billion or 6.5 percent, not including war costs. All but $3.6 billion of the discretionary spending increase would go to security-related spending, leaving a 1 percent increase for domestic accounts. That is well below the anticipated rate of inflation, resulting in a decrease in “real” dollars.

The budget proposal includes an ambitious attempt to slow spending on entitlement programs, with Medicare the principal target. The president’s proposal slices a net $95.9 billion from entitlement spending over the next five years, and $309 billion over 10 years. Medicare savings alone account for $66 billion over five years and $252.4 billion over a decade.

The cuts, however, are dwarfed by the cost of extending Bush’s tax cuts, most of which are set to expire in 2010. Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost $373.9 billion over five years and $1.62 trillion over a decade. Additional tax cuts and extensions, including a one-year “patch” to blunt the effects of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), would cost $225 billion over five years and $237.3 billion over a decade.

The president’s plan also assumes enactment of a number of initiatives that were rejected by a friendly Republican Congress and appear to be dead on arrival now that Democrats are in control.

His budget, for example, assumes that Congress will allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and will charge new or increased fees for veterans’ health care.

Hostile Reaction

The budget faced a chilly reception from Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada ripped the budget. “Despite the historic fiscal failures of the past six years, President Bush’s budget proposes more of the same. …The president insists on spending billions on $150,000 tax breaks for multi-millionaires, at the expense of the middle class. His budget hands out favors for the oil and gas industry, while eroding health coverage for children and seniors.”

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the budget “is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction.”

Despite Bush’s professed goal of balancing the federal budget by 2012, Conrad pointed out that his budget does not take into account war costs beyond fiscal 2008. Nor does it account for modifications to the AMT beyond calendar 2007. The budget, he said, also assumes deep cuts in domestic discretionary programs beyond 2008 but does not specify where they are to occur.

Conversely, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said the budget proposal represented a solid start to debating the fiscal 2008 budget.

“I fully support the president’s goal of balancing the budget — without raising taxes — by supporting continued economic growth and job creation, and by further restraining federal spending,” Ryan said.

Democrats have promised to put forward their own budget plan that would balance the budget by 2012, but their proposal will almost certainly assume that some of Bush’s tax cuts would not be extended beyond 2010, when most are scheduled to expire.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he supports extensions of some of the tax cuts — primarily those that help lower- and middle-income taxpayers — and modifications to the AMT.

Baucus also praised Bush’s proposals to invest in renewable energy.

He said he intended to look for savings in Medicare and Medicaid that would not harm recipients. But he cautioned that the problems facing the twin entitlement programs lie beyond the guidelines spelled out in federal laws.

“To truly address Medicare and Medicaid’s long-term fiscal health, we must recognize that the programs are not the main problem – spiraling health care costs are,” Baucus said.
Baucus also said Bush’s budget does damage to programs designed to provide health coverage to children.

“We should go much further than this budget does to keep kids healthy, to get a handle on health care costs, to increase our economic competitiveness, and to make sure that unpaid taxes are collected to fund America’s priorities,” Baucus said.

House Budget Chairman John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., complained that Bush found fiscal room to extend his tax cuts by slicing spending on domestic needs.

“In the name of balancing the budget by 2012, he hits domestic priorities such as health care, education, and the environment,” Spratt said.

Path to balance

The president’s budget assumes a $244 billion deficit in fiscal 2007, down from $248 billion in fiscal 2006. The red ink is projected to diminish each year before turning into a $61 billion surplus in fiscal 2012.

In addition to the entitlement program cuts, the president’s budget assumes annual discretionary spending caps that would require significant cuts in future years. From fiscal 2007 to fiscal 2012, total spending would be allowed to rise 15 percent. Security-related spending would increase by 23 percent over five years, but non-security spending would rise just 5 percent, far less than the anticipated rate of inflation.

Sorry, I lost yesterday’s link, but you can read more about it at the CQ site today. Like the cutbacks in first responder funding. Against the recommendations of his own people. Or about how the Pretzel Boy’s budget places the burden on the old, poor, and children as heath care costs rise and he does nothing helpful about it.

When I’m in that creative, foily mood, I often think of a future in which we’ll find that the Federal Government plays no real role in our lives. I’m less pessimistic abou things now that the Democrats seem to be somewhat willing to stand up for the pillars of our Great Society and fight back against this sort of Norquistian nonsense, but still- the Republicans aren’t even trying to pretend anymore. Your tax dollars? No, silly. They the fee you pay so that your globally applied pseudo-theocratic militias can run around and secure profit opportunities for your corporate masters. Or just for a lot of waste and fraud, also known as Republican welfare for millionaires. Either way, you pay in and get nothing out, unless you count the opportunity to serve as a cannon fodder in endless tours of duty in lands far and wide. If you don’t get all your limbs blown off, they’ll even pay for part of your education so you can be a very well educated burger flipper.

Being more serious, I do wonder about how the States will manage the increasing burden. Poor sick people don’t just go away because they are cut out of the budget. People don’t stop having fires and accidents because first responders have less money to respond. You can make similar arguments for schools, infrastructure, agriculture…all of that increased burden falls upon the states. It will be interesting, and I’m sure also somewhat depressing, to see what solutions different states come up with.