With a new budget coming down the pipe, there's going to be a lot of bitching and moaning about reckless and dangerous budget cuts proposed by the Bush Administration. But you should look a little closer when examining those cuts, says Larry Elder.

Cuts in Washington usually mean lowering the projected increases. Take, for example, NASA, the U.S. Space Agency. The president proposes $16.45 billion for NASA in 2006. That's a 2.4 percent increase over what the government is spending this year on the program. But it is $500 million less than what the space agency was expecting for 2006. So, NASA is listed as one of the 154 programs facing extinction or "drastic spending reductions." Only in Washington does a decrease in the proposed increase equal a spending cut.

This is how Washington works. They automatically plan on at least a 4-6% budget increase. When they only get 2-3%, they call it a "cut". The erstwhile Senate Majority Leader Tom "Puff" Daschle once griped that his 3.1% pay increase (which he gave himself) was actually a pay cut. In an interview with Greta van Susteren Daschle called it "not a raise".

I recommend you read the rest of Mr. Elder's column. He offers wonderful insight into the Constitution, and notes that we should learn from some of the former Eastern Bloc nations who know what it's like to live in a socialist welfare state.