Pickin's look pretty slim in the president's budget proposal, unless of course you include Department of Defense spending. Many editorials published in Washington and other metropolitan communities may want to debate defense funding but not this column. Let's give our fighting men and women all they need to get the job done and back home safely.

However, the domestic side of the budget equation is certainly fair game. The president's budget proposes to reduce the deficit by $5 billion in 2008 and balance annual spending by 2012. Imagine that, in five years the federal government could operate under the same principle parents and grandparents have been teaching youngsters for years: "Don't spend what you don't have."

When situations arise and governments find themselves in a pinch, needing more money, they have a choice to make. It is always a difficult choice, but nonetheless a choice. They can either go into debt to pay for whatever remedies the situation calls for, or they can scale back spending on current programs until the situation is resolved. For far too long the first option has been followed. The president's proposal seems to step in a different direction.

Entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up the majority of federal spending and cause real fear in minds of many budget hawks like Sens. Tom Coburn and Judd Gregg. Members like these two see how expensive our future obligations on entitlement programs are and worry about how the next generation of lawmakers and taxpayers will pay for these programs. It's a real threat that many overlook or simply refuse to address.

The president's budget looks to curb spending in entitlement and mandatory programs for a savings of $96 billion over five years and $309 billion over ten years. Cuts to these programs are unpopular. Democrats and Republicans alike will offer grandiose statements on the floor of the House and Senate arguing that entitlement programs must be protected, especially if the one speaking is up for re-election. Historically, those who benefit from these programs show up at polling places come November.

What many voters don't realize is that the ever-increasing entitlement program budget affects every other program in the federal budget. Since many elected officials do want the government to operate under some financial restraint, they will look to cut funding from other, less controversial discretionary programs.

Take a look at agriculture for example. The president's budget proposal for agriculture is $89 billion out of the $2.9 trillion budget. That's roughly 3 percent of the total federal budget. You will hear arguments that payment limits must be put in place to cut spending, yet the entire agriculture budget is merely 3 percent of the total. Within the agriculture budget itself over 50 percent goes to entitlement food assistance programs like food stamps. In the end, the most heated debate on this budget proposal will focus on programs with the smallest potential impact.

While elected officials should fully scrutinize all federal spending programs, no matter what their size; if they truly want to reign in federal spending, they must find a way to control the growth of entitlement programs. And quite frankly, the sooner, the better.