is not terrorism.
It is hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, snowstorms, landslides, etc.
But your government spends most of the money on the military on the perceived threats that will bring the most fear.
Early governments used the fear of their god to keep their populace in control.
Bush and Co. use the fear of terrorists to keep the populace in control now that god is dwindling in control.

_{repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.}

Among the reductions are more than $1 billion to programs run by the Administration for Children and Families, including a $280 million hit to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a block grant program that helps the poor pay heating and air-conditioning bills.

The budget plan argues for a $500 million reduction in the Social Services Block Grant program, which helps states protect children from neglect and abuse, and pay for day care, adoption, health services, foster care and other services for children and families.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would lose more than $430 million, including $27 million from its efforts to detect and control infectious diseases, and $28 million from chronic disease prevention and health promotion. A $301 million program that trains 4,700 pediatricians and pediatric specialists at children's teaching hospitals also would be eliminated, at a time when pediatric specialties, such as rheumatology and pulmonology, face critical shortages.

President's Spending Plan Would Rival 2004 Deficit

By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 3, 2008; A06

President Bush will present a budget tomorrow that would slow the growth of Medicare and cut or eliminate an array of domestic programs but still anticipates a flood of new red ink that will rival the record deficits of his first term, administration officials said.

Bush's fiscal 2009 budget would increase defense spending by 5 percent and put a modest amount of new money into favored initiatives such as veterans affairs, education and homeland security.

But the president wants to dramatically slow the growth of big federal health programs, reduce anti-terrorism grants for states and cities, and cut spending on anti-poverty, housing and social service programs, according to budget documents and interviews with officials throughout the federal government.

Even as he proposes restoring funding for the controversial Reading First program, Bush will take aim at a number of education initiatives, officials said. The early literacy program Even Start would be eliminated, as would grants to states for education technology, technology careers and incarcerated youth. Funding for a college scholarship program named after Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) would fall from $40 million to zero, a symbolic shot at a fierce Bush critic.

The more than $3 trillion federal budget for 2009 that Bush will unveil is his final opportunity to shape the priorities of the government before leaving office a year from now. Lawmakers and their aides say Bush has little leverage left to force his proposals on a recalcitrant Congress.

But even in the unlikely event that he were to get his way, the budget deficit would jump sharply, from $163 billion in 2007 to about $400 billion in 2008 and 2009 -- partly the result of the new economic stimulus plan. Such deficits would rival the record deficit of $412 billion of 2004, though administration allies argue that shortfalls of that size now represent a smaller share of the overall economy and are thus more manageable.

Still, the new budget underscores Bush's inability to get control of spending over the course of his seven-year tenure, a failure that has concerned even his conservatives allies. The problem is projected to get worse in coming years with the retirements of the baby-boom generation, a big obstacle to the ambitious tax-cutting or spending plans of the leading presidential contenders.

more

Bush Proposes First $3 Trillion Budget

Monday February 4, 2008 1:31 AM
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy. Democrats, who control Congress, are pledging fierce opposition to Bush's final spending plan - perhaps even until the next president takes office.

The 2009 spending plan sent to Congress on Monday will project huge budget deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next and more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

more

I think I've posted an article from this guy a few years back. Very informative. Read more about him for info on Pentagon spending.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/spinney.html

A good economy is the best defence for any country.

How does this budget help our economy?

It is only when white, formerly middle and upper class Americans wake up one day to discover they are living in a third world country that this nonsense will stop.

sorry, couldn't resist the fix. plenty of americans live in "third world" conditions right now, they just aren't sexy white women swimming with sharks so most never hear about them.

The business of defense and government contracting is shot through with corruption. Military officers retire and form firms that get juicy "study" contracts. I've personally witnessed one that even declared itself non-profit. Another employed the wife of the CEO in a consulting capability--and she had no knowledge of the subject matter at all.

Ike was right--these people will steal us blind and try to control us.

I was once invited to bid on an FBI contract and declined. When the guy spearheading it asked why I didn't respond to the RFP, I answered that what he wanted to do wasn't possible--no, not feasible, but impossible. And that they weren't offering enough money for me and my firm to even attempt it.

One of the DC-area military-old-boy "consulting" firms got the contract (they were the only bidder). They took five years to accomplish nothing and received numerous contract add-ons and extensions to do it.

It's time to set some very strict rules and pay on the basis of finished product, not "progress"--and hold the contractor 100% responsible for the product's performance--no cost overruns or bailouts allowed. And treble damage and long prison terms for fraud.

And no "no-bid" contracts. Period.