WASHINGTON -- Legislators and policymakers yesterday began sifting through the several hundred pages of President Bush's $2.5 trillion 2006 budget, with members of both parties expressing considerable skepticism about the administration's proposals to scale back some 150 government programs and saying Congress was unlikely to accept many of the cuts.

		Related articles Local group rallies against Bush's proposed budget cuts Defense spending to grow, shift focus

Some key Republicans, such as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, praised the president for "stepping up" and presenting a "restrained" budget that he said addressed the nation's deficit.

But Democrats denounced Bush's proposals and argued that the administration's decision to once again exclude from its spending plan the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- as well as the long-term effects of his intent to make his tax cuts permanent -- hid the truth about the nation's finances from the American people.

The budget that Bush sent to Congress yesterday is designed to project U.S. power and priorities overseas while squeezing government programs at home. But despite politically painful cuts, it would not make a sizable dent in the nation's record deficit next year.

While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget would slash funding for a broad array of other government services as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. In the long term, the fiscal plan envisions holding nonsecurity discretionary spending flat for the next five years to fulfill Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Later this week, the administration will request $81 billion to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations this year. White House officials yesterday said it would be irresponsible to guess what those funding levels would be in future years -- an assertion that Democrats view as a dodge.

"The president says he has no timetable for withdrawal [from Iraq]," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "In this budget, he has a timetable for withdrawal -- because he has no money past Sept. 30 of this year. There's no funding for the ongoing effort in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Many Democrats also sharply criticized the administration for proposing cuts to numerous domestic programs, including vocational training, education, prescription drug benefits for veterans and the COPS program, which has put 100,000 new police officers on the streets, while allowing spending on defense and homeland security to rise.

Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, noted yesterday that defense spending will have increased by more than 40 percent since 2001.

Even Gregg acknowledged that the president's domestic cuts would create "considerable angst" among his GOP colleagues. One of those is Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said Bush's proposed reductions in spending on education and health and human services, two areas that Specter oversees as an Appropriations subcommittee chairman, were "unacceptable."

Specter also said he would lead a coalition of lawmakers to oppose the administration's proposed slashing of funds for Amtrak. The rail system received $1.2 billion this year, but would get just $360 million under the administration proposal.

"We are going to have to make substantial modifications in the Congress," Specter said of the White House budget. "I think they are serious about cutting the deficit, and I certainly agree the deficit has to be cut. But you can't do it all on discretionary programs. ... The Constitution gives Congress the authority to appropriate, and we will exercise it."

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale, criticized the administration for allowing defense and homeland security programs to continue to grow -- by 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively, beyond the 2005 budget -- while angling for cuts that Doyle said would have deep consequences for urban centers such as Pittsburgh. The domestic program cuts, he said, were not a real way of addressing the nation's deficit.

"We're staring at these huge deficits and a war in Iraq that continues to drain a billion and a half dollars a week, and that's not even part of the budget," he said. Bush "is being dishonest with the American people. ... It's going to be a disaster for Western Pennsylvania."

Doyle was particularly critical of the administration's proposal to move the $4.7 billion in community development funds -- grant money to help urban areas that is currently under Housing and Urban Development Department stewardship -- into the Commerce Department, where those grants would be merged with 17 other programs and significantly pared. He said eliminating the program would produce "a nightmare" for parts of Pittsburgh, Penn Hills and McKeesport.

Doyle also expressed concern about the administration's proposed elimination of programs such as the Safe and Drug-Free School Grants, which budget documents describe as "unable to demonstrate results."

But Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, who said he was unable to cite specifics because he was still reviewing program changes in the Bush proposal, said the president had made a good start at trying to get rid of waste and redundancy within the federal government.

"Americans are calling for controlling federal spending and cutting the deficit, and the president responded by cutting things down," Murphy said.