President George W. Bush's fiscally conservative $2.5 trillion budget for 2005-06 has caused some local community members to question the future of government assistance programs.

The plan, presented to Congress yesterday, would change or eliminate 150 government programs, but would also increase funding for defense and homeland security.

"Homeland security continues to be an important budget item," Centre Country Republican chair Glenn Thompson said. "The fact that we haven't had any problems doesn't mean we should be any less vigilant in this area."

About one-third of the programs being targeted for elimination are in the Department of Education, including federal grant programs for local schools in areas such as vocational education, anti-drug efforts and Even Start, a $225 million literacy program.

College Democrats President Megan Green agreed that Bush's proposal of increasing Pell Grants for low-income college students, and in general, any initiative to improve education was good, but she added that some programs like No Child Left Behind have not been sufficient.

"Bush hasn't adequately addressed the needs of the students and teachers yet," Green said. "He needs to talk to the teachers more -- coming from a family with two teachers, my mom hasn't seen any changes yet."

Green said her mother works in a relatively poor school district and getting basic items such as textbooks is difficult.

Bush's move would cut the deficit by $390 billion by 2006, but Democrats said there are other ways of dealing with the deficit.

"A way in which Bush could deal with the big deficits would be to get rid of the tax cuts on the wealthy," Centre County Democratic chair Bob Shepherd said. "Not a drastic tax increase, but just an increase."

However, Thompson said that the tax cuts were necessary because they've stimulated the economy.

"By growing the economy, we can also cut the deficit," he said. "We've seen the recovery of the economy and that the economic gains are significant."

Economics lecturer Paul Graf said both tax increases and cutting spending are ways to cut the budget.

"From a macroeconomic perspective, generally, the bigger effects come from spending changes rather than tax changes," he said.

College Republican staff adviser Charles Gable said it was important to look into programs to see if money is being wasted.

"In general, you need to evaluate which programs work and which don't," Gable said. "If they're not working then you should get rid of them and Bush thought there needed to be some reform."

Green agreed that one way to reduce the deficit would be to roll back the tax cuts, but also agreed with Gable by saying that programs need to be evaluated.

Other programs set for cuts include the Army Corps of Engineers, whose dam and other waterway projects are extremely popular in Congress; several health programs under the Health and Human Services Department and federal subsidies for the Amtrak passenger railroad.

Democrats have criticized Bush's plan because it does not project deficits far enough into the future, but Gable said this criticism is unfair.

"Typically whenever a president projects a budget they only go five years in advance so the criticism is unfair," Gable said. "When [former President Bill] Clinton made budget proposals, he only went five years in advance."

--The Associated Press contributed to this report