"The 'Reagan Revolution' did not shrink the size of the federal government: in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for president federal spending (gross of offsetting receipts) was 22.7% of GDP; in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for president federal spending was 23.2% of GDP. The 'Reagan Revolution' did change the shape of federal spending: one-third of domestic federal spending outside of the entitlement programs went missing between 1980 and 1992, replaced primarily by debt interest and secondarily by higher military spending. "

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.

The Army private first class said he had been assigned an antiquated rifle, but not enough ammunition to set the sights properly, Brian Hart recalled yesterday. The protective plates also didn't fit his Kevlar vest, the soldier told his father. Last week he called to say that the Humvees they were using were not reinforced with armor.