During last week's State of the Union address, President Bush was apparently trying to pose as a disciple of fiscal discipline. That's what conservatives-even the compassionate sort-are supposed to do. He told Congress he would send them a budget, “that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs,” all while cutting the huge budget deficit in half over the next five years.

Sounds good, but can he deliver?

To accomplish this deficit slashing, the President would limit discretionary spending increases to 4% per year. Since taking office, however, President Bush has overseen a 39% increase in discretionary spending, including a 9% rise in fiscal year 2004. Even though some of the recent increase can be attributed to spending on war-related and homeland security expenses, this President is not afraid of deficit borrowing and deficit spending. He followed Tuesday night's budget hawk comments with a string of proposed tax credits and spending priorities. Some were small-a $300 million, four-year program to assist recently released prisoners. Others were whoppers-touting the drug benefit for Medicare recipients and advocating to make permanent the tax cuts.

Noticeably absent was any mention of the biggest whopper of them all-the Moon-Mars project the President championed last week. He decided this wasn't a matter worthy of the State of the Union speech-despite the program's long-term spending requirements-but included a paragraph urging pro athletes to stop using steroids. That's practically like not mentioning the war, but spending time calling for a ban on instant replay in Football. Mentioned or not, President Bush wants to send astronauts to Mars. Or, more correctly, he wants a future President to do it and future taxpayers to pay for it. He proposes a $1 billion increase in space funding over five years to begin planning for a trip that will cost close to a trillion dollars before it becomes “mission accomplished”-an estimated 30 years or longer. This proposal alone will boldly send the budget deficit where no deficit has ever gone before.

The president revived the idea of privatizing a portion of Social Security, but even this will create a crater in the budget, requiring Washington to find hundreds of billions of dollars to cover current payments to retirees.

With all these new programs, the administration's contention that the deficit will be cut in half in the next five years is a tall tale, derived in large part by omitting very likely or inevitable costs, including costs for proposals the Administration itself hopes and intends to support: continuing operations in Iraq, Alternative Minimum tax relief, and extension of the existing tax breaks. Increased revenues from a rebounding economy will help, but only a little.

No wonder budget hawks in the Republican ranks are starting to revolt, publicly deriding the pork and billions in wasteful spending in this year's appropriations bills and next year's budget proposals. The presidency, first and foremost, is a matter of budgetary stewardship-leaving for one's successor a stronger and more financially stable nation. This administration has already overseen the largest fiscal reversal in our nation's history, and today's deficit now stands at a half trillion dollars. If the president succeeds in making permanent his tax cuts, the deficit could increase by $5 trillion in the next 10 years. It may be much higher if something doesn't change. Some fault lies with the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, no doubt, but ultimate responsibility falls at the feet of the president. He alone has the power to veto pork-laden and inappropriate spending bills, but has failed to do so even once.

The President should also leave open the possibility of flat-lining the defense budget. The $166 billion cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive new weapons systems, and other growing commitments are pushing defense spending into budgetary orbit. Many of the Pentagon's new expenses are unplanned, indirect consequences of the continued fighting. The Army, for instance, is shipping home and reconditioning the tanks and combat vehicles that spearheaded last spring's attack on Baghdad. Something has got to give. A likely candidate is some of the expensive Cold War weapons systems like the F/A-22 Raptor

New spending ($772 billion) and tax cuts ($300 billion) already in place for the current fiscal year will continue to drive the record deficit spending. Piling on the pork this way is irresponsible beyond description. To really change this trend, however, the borrow-and-spend lawmakers on Capitol Hill would have to admit that mortgaging our children's future and outrageously undermining our fiscal integrity has indeed been one big mistake. That isn't likely to happen unless this administration gets truly serious about reducing the deficit. All we got on Tuesday night was more-a whole lot more-of the same.