Illustration by Holly Randall

Tax cuts for the rich, increased military spending, corporate giveaways in the major entitlement programs and cuts in programs that serve the needy in society to pay for it all. Compassionate conservatism is back in full swing.

Now that Sept. 11, 2001 is in the rear-view mirror and George Bush won a second term, the Bush administration has run out of political excuses to substantially increase spending.

Demanded and pressured by market forces (foreign investors concerned about over-borrowing and the weak dollar), the Bush administration released a fiscal year 2006 budget proposal that attempts to stem America's rising deficit by cutting numerous discretionary programs that help the poor. If implemented, the yearly deficit would remain basically stationary.

This can be misleading though, as many of the Bush budget numbers do not include the cost of proposed Social Security changes or added costs from the continuation of conflicts in the Middle East.

With better decision-making, honesty and fiscal prioritizing, the deficit could actually be reduced. But Bush is offering us no such plan.

Downsizing military spending would normally be considered for reducing the debt. But wait - we're in a war on terror and the mission is to spread democracy and end tyranny throughout the world. The Bush budget defines soaring military spending with a proposed $20 billion increase in Department of Defense and Homeland Security spending. The budget doesn't even include the $80 billion supplemental fund he will ask Congress to approve for the continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

Dan Post Columnist

Since this administration relentlessly props up military spending, it would seem reasonable to expect cuts or elimination of the major entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. But instead, the minds in the White House have increased the cost of these entitlement programs. The prescription drug benefit costs an extra $720 billion. Even the low-balled White House estimate of the proposed Social Security changes comes in at $750 billion (though this is also not included in the proposed budget).

What the fiscal 2006 budget is lacking in revisions to the big money pits and social entitlements, it makes up for in cuts to more than 150 non-mandatory government programs, 48 from the Department of Education. The savings: a paltry $15 billion.

The biggest of these cuts in the Bush budget would come in cuts to programs that are designed to help the neediest people in society. These include a reduction in spending on food stamps, a cut in Medicaid health care for the impoverished and the complete elimination of the vocational education program. Are cutting programs like these, which affect so many people, worth the small savings? It seems more than anything like a distraction.

Students, meanwhile, should pay particular attention to some of the proposed cuts, such as their effect on financial aid.

Bush is trying to spin his changes to financial aid to look like they actually benefit students. The plan increases the Pell Grant maximum award by $100 every year for five years to a peak of $4,550, and retires the $4.3 billion debt the program has accumulated. The total number of students who will receive Pell Grants and other forms of loans will increase.

But let's not get too cheerful too fast.

For one, the plan eliminates all subsidized Perkins Loans, which allow students to directly borrow from their university. Moreover, the average increase in the Pell Grant from 2005 to the proposed 2006 numbers is $60 (a 1.5 percent increase, which is less than annual inflation). This is while the average cost of tuition in this country rose 10.5 percent in 2004. The UA's tuition rose even more: 13.9 percent. Doesn't this Pell Grant assistance really sound like a benefit cut?

The Bush administration has taken the path of increasing spending in military, supplying tax cuts to the rich and turning the major entitlement programs into corporate giveaways. To pay for it all without increasing the deficit, they have chosen to cut out a wide swath of useful programs that give relief to the lower classes.

It would be significantly more effective and sensible to reduce military spending and to stop giving away taxpayer's money to corporations through tax breaks and entitlement program adjustments.

George Bush needs to reduce the deficit. But his proposed changes hardly make sense for that goal.

Dan Post is an anthropology and ecology senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.