VP Spin

It's great to know our Vice President is so interested in getting the record straight on Bush's record, that he's got the time to write an editorial showing only his side of the story:

On the spending side of the ledger, I can't dispute Alan's general notion that the federal government is too big and spends too much money--we've agreed on that point since we both worked in the Ford administration more than 30 years ago. President Bush feels the same way, and that's why he has steadily reduced the annual rate of growth in non-security discretionary spending. In contrast, the last budget enacted during the Clinton/Gore administration increased that category of spending by a staggering 15%. President Bush has pressed hard to keep that spending under control--and this year's increase will actually be lower than the rate of inflation for the third year in a row.

Note the term non-security discretionary spending. As in non military spending. I'm sorry, but I think 15% of the budget for non-security services from the government is more than reasonable. I'd like to know why the other 95% is being spent on war. I know that it's easy to claim that the government is too big and that the government should spend less, but what we should be talking about in that regard is the entire budget, not just how much goes into "non-security" spending. Right now our military budget is so over blown it's just crazy. We're spending an average of 80% of our budget annually on defense alone. Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend those dollars on improving the lives of Americans as opposed to wasting it on foreign wars that we should be involved in to begin with?