Programs are categorized different because each is run by different departments; which means, institutionally and legally, that each has its own appropriations process; is its own item on the Congress list; and therefore is independent from the size of any and all of the other programs. It does not mean anything else than that. If the US split the defense budget and made a department for each service branch, like many countries do, would you then argue that the US just cut its defense budget? The character as social program or not is not decided by which department runs it, period! Medical, SS, welfare, food, *all are social programs* and don't stop being social programs just because there isn't a "Department of Social Programs". That isn't an illogical, idiosyncratic or (your word) "broad" definition of social programs; it's the only one that makes sense! All expenditures on giving the people free stuff are social programs, regardless of who qualifies and what the things are. If Baldur really wanted to be broad, he'd include defense as social too, because that money still goes to the American people: servicemen. *That* would be broad.

And again, it's easy for Europe to give peanuts to defense when America is doing the paying (and the dying) for its defense. Leave Nato, or at least require them to pay for their defense as Trump proposes, and quickly you'll see both the European defense budgets increase and the American defense budget proportionately fall.





Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail