I agree. However as a past budget advocate, I would not use words like "attack" on any line item that is a possibility. The terminology suggests (not saying this was/is your intent) creating a negative mind set.

What the American people know and understand is the notion of living within one's means. They fully understand that they must "cut" (attack!) those discretionary items in their budget that enable them to get back to $ out cannot exceed $$ in!!! So if they had been donating big to charities and now had to cut back to make ends meet.........that is what most of us would do.

But if a politician goes after discretionary line items, the action is demonized depending on the message the writer wants to send or parrot (not intended as a negative term, just an action).

An out of control spending situation with no budget does in fact need to be attacked and spending reduced, cut or eliminated. None of which is currently happening in US government. They continue to do business as usual....akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic!!!

btk