[[That's about as clueless a conclusion as you can come up with. He has been drastically expanding, not decreasing, nonmilitary discretionary spending. Whatever effect that has on the overall budget, it doesn't take things in the right direction, and it doesn't speak well for his commitment to turn things around. How hard is that for you to understand?]]
You need to take a break from your talking points rhetoric and provide substance. Let's take FY 2004 projections:
OMB projects that for FY 2004, government revenues will be $1.797 trillion.
The defense department will consume $409 billion. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory spending will amount to $1.259 trillion. Interest on the national debt will come to $165 billion. Those categories add up to $1.822 trillion. That leaves a budget deficit of $25 billion before the first non-military discretionary dollar is spent.
(Statistics From OMB 2004 Budget Proposal)
While there is certainly some waste in non-military discretionary spending (like studies in female arousal, bridge to nowhere in Alaska, etc.), that area of the budget is only one seventh of the total budget. It is in this area where pork barrel spending resides, but it is only a drop in the bucket. Without the line item veto, it is virtually impossible to eliminate pork which is never submitted on its own, but attached to important bills in deals for votes between members of Congress.
Now let's get around your rhetoric and talk in real figures, the real area of discretionary spending you should focus on is non-security discretionary spending, Clinton's last budget, FY 2001, non-security related discretionary spending increased 15%, let's track Bush and reveal the truth: FY 2002 - 6%, FY 2003 - 5%, FY 2004 - 4%, FY - 2005 - 1%, FY 2006 (projected) - minus 1% (percentages adjusted for inflation).
You can check out Bush's FY 2006 Budget Proposal here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/overview-06.pdf Congress made minor adjustments (increases) to Bush's FY 2006 budget proposal, but kept the one part under discussion relatively untouched from the Bush proposal: non-Defense, non-Homeland Security "discretionary" spending. This will be $391.1 billion next year, a decrease of 0.8 percent from this year.
Are there parts of his budget I disagree with ? Certainly, but I am not politically naive enough to believe any candidate is going to march lockstep with my ideas. For one, I see no need, or authorization under the Constitution, for a Department of Education. The Department of Education falls under discretionary spending. But if you want to lose elections, just try to advocate for cutting all federal education spending.
So where have the bulk of discretionary spending increases come ? Military spending has been increased by one third, and Homeland Security issues budget has been tripled.
You might even find interesting this August 2000 piece by left winger Paul Krugman about the smoke and mirrors of the projected surplus.
Reckonings: "Counting Chickens"
http://clinicalfreedom.org/Surplus2.htm Maybe you will stop opening your mouth and swallowing what you are spoonfed without investigation and research, then again, maybe there will be a blizzard in the Sahara desert, which is more likely ? The budget problems this country faces resides squarely on the back of mandatory spending on entitlement programs.
You continue to show you have NO CLUE about the big picture, even in the face of facts, you comeback with more rhetoric and no substance. That, my friend, is called intransigence from someone with an entrenched ideology.
I could lay down more factual presentations, but it is apparent you are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts and am wasting my time explaining the folly of your argument.