His proposed budget is a sham, built on deceitful assumptions. For example, no costs are considered for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2009. And economic growth, despite a looming recession, is projected at a healthy 2.7 percent.

The spending plan does, however, contain a few mathematical truths that should haunt the next president.

The projected deficit for fiscal 2009, for example, is $410 billion. By the time Bush leaves office, he will have bequeathed his successor a national debt of $9.7 trillion. About $4 trillion of that was added during his fiscally reckless presidency.

Interest payments on the debt next year will cost taxpayers $260 billion - equal to the money spent on the Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor combined.

Congress and the next president also must confront Bush's costly proposal to make his tax cuts permanent. They are scheduled to expire starting in 2010.

Chronic deficits and other pressing budgetary needs demand that at least some of the tax cuts be allowed to expire. But doing so will essentially put lawmakers in the position of approving a huge tax increase, which could cost them reelection votes.

If political cowardice wins out and Bush's tax cuts are extended, it would cost the government nearly $2 trillion over the following decade. That's extra red ink this country can't afford, especially given the mushrooming deficits in Medicare and Social Security.

The guns-vs.-butter aspect of this administration has never been more clear. Bush proposes to freeze most domestic spending; some agency budgets would be cut, such as Health and Human Services (2 percent). But the Defense Department would get a whopping 7.5 percent increase, to a record $515 billion.

Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) said defense spending must "be subjected to the same scrutiny" as other agencies. But most Democrats seem afraid to trim this bloated request in an election year with troops in the field.

Seniors and the disabled would likely have fewer health-care choices under this budget, which would slow the growth of spending for Medicare and Medicaid by freezing reimbursement payments to doctors and hospitals.

Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), a member of the House Budget Committee, said hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania would receive $226 million less than is anticipated in Medicare payments in 2009, and $2.1 billion less over five years.

Overall, it's a prescription for encouraging more physicians to drop out of the program, leaving fewer options for a growing number of seniors.

States would be forced to pick up more of the burden for Medicaid costs, but most states already face deficits, such as New Jersey's $3.5 billion shortfall.

Transportation would be cut 25 percent, despite a growing need for repairs to the nation's infrastructure. Has Bush already forgotten the collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis? A structural flaw caused 13 deaths.

Health-care fees for veterans would rise under Bush's plan; homeland security grants to local first responders would be cut nearly in half. That's not how to take care of business at home.

Even some high-ranking Republicans in Congress criticize this proposed budget. It borrows from the people who need services most, in favor of those who need tax relief the least. Congress ought to proceed as if Bush had never submitted this spending plan.