Hands in the federal pocketbook

The federal budget is boring. I mean, really boring. You might think it's boring hearing or reading about it, but I'm actually writing about it, so think about how boring it is for me. Then think about how well I slept afterward.\nBut it's an important topic very worthy of discussion because it's relevant to everyone. The problem: how does one approach discussing a thing like this? The last thing I want to do while I'm sitting in class, completely bored, is look down to read an article that's so much more boring that it makes me want to pay attention to the class.\nSo, since we're on the topic of the budget, let's pretend that the 2004 budget the Bush Administration submitted last week is not $2.23 trillion (that is how much it is; trillion with a t-r) but actually $2.23.\nI think that's pretty rational. Most college kids could probably scrape up that kind of change from a tray somewhere in a room or car. And since Bush's budget is the furthest thing from being fiscally conservative, ours will be the furthest thing from real.\nSo, where does this money go?\nThere are two ways the government spends -- badly and worse. No, just kidding. The two types of spending are known as nondiscretionary and discretionary. \nNondiscretionary spending contains programs to which the government is locked into, like Social Security, or programs that stem from interest payments on the national debt. Most college students consider pizza and beer money to be nondiscretionary spending.\nThen we have discretionary spending, which means "available for use as needed or desired," which translates nicely into government lingo literally as, "Yeehaw! Here we go!" Most college students consider textbook money used on pizza and beer to be discretionary spending.\nSo discretionary spending is everything else, not required but desired, divided into two categories: defense and non-defense. Defense spending is a big priority for this administration. Using our mini-budget of $2.23, 38 cents (roughly 17 percent of the whole thing) will be spent on defense, including 9 cents on currently a nonexistent missile defense shield.\nThis is the largest defense spending increase since the Ronald Reagan presidency, which was synonymous with fiscal responsibility in every way Bill Clinton was with fidelity.\nBut that's not all. Bush wants another round of tax cuts (67 cents in our little budget). He wants 15.5 cents for NASA, which got only about a nickel last year. \nSurprisingly, Congress seems lukewarm to this. With only narrow majorities in both houses, Republicans hope to keep the budget intact. \n "People used to say a president's budget was dead on arrival. That's certainly not the case now," said Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) of the Senate Budget Committee.\n But Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, said that now Republicans have control of the budget, they're using the power to "take off into a deficit swamp."\nEither way, the budget will be complicated. Bush will oversee a gigantic deficit (beating out his father, who previously held that record). And he doesn't allow any money at this point for the impending war with Iraq, which analysts say could cost at least 61 cents (our plan) to at most two gazillion dollars. \nI personally don't know where he'd get that money. If he's like most college kids, though, he should start looking between the cushions.