On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:22:05 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a
diplomat.

FOAD, Parakeet.


Almost everyone gets surprises when they dig into the federal budget. Larry
has identified a number of expenses that actually are quite small. Then he
says (facetiously, perhaps) that cutting them ought to cut out half of the
budget.

They're all superfluous, too. A properly wielded line item veto would
do wonders for the future.

You think $173B on the war on terrorism is small potatoes? And $28B
for DHS? Granted, the $167M for the EPA isn't a large expenditure,
but it stifles a lot more economic growth than that figure. (SWAG)

The program terminations look like a good step. There are only 2
which look like they should stay--the preventive health items.

That's a long list of tables. /crossed eyes

--

SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat