We are still not together. You are very wrong.
The budget is not done by chatting across the fireplace with a cup of coffee. Once Bush put his general ideas into a framework, number crunchers added to the data input with regression analysis and other trend fitting methods. You are way off target stating that the budget is opinion. Acturaries gave input on Medicare and SS, among others, and the math wizzards inputted data for analysis of variance and regression input, etc. You are light years off with that comment.
Most spending increases have been for defense.
WRONG!
Bush's first budget had Defense at 17.3%. Bush's projection out to 2010 has Defense at just 16.7%. That is a DECLINE!
Welfare (Superfunction HR) shows a INCREASE from 65.5% in Bush's first budget out to 67.2% at 2010.
FACTS prove you wrong.
As to the raw dollar increases we have seen in Superfunction Defense post 9/11, that money is not going to Defense that increases our national security as much (R&D, Procurement, etc.), but to logistics, troop rotation, admin, pay, benefits, the cost of war, etc.
Indeed, there are major cuts coming in the F-35 and/or F-22, the DD(X), and other weapon systems in order to pay for the rising welfare costs.
You are wrong on all counts.
Source: Jane's Defence Weekly (re military programs)
Source: OMB (re budget data)
If HR costs went from 65.5 to 67.2 in 9 yrs that means it increased at a rate of 0.2% per year. That means they are stagnent certainly not growing to any degree. Hence Bush has put a stop to the growth in that segment of the budget completely different from your wild rhetoric.
Defense spending have definitely increased since the first budget and the 2010 figure assumes that it can be cut after the war in Iraq is finished. There is another 100 billion for that not even IN the budget for this year.