As more than 20 states hold presidential primary contests today, it's useful to consider another political issue: President Bush's budget for 2009.

The record $3.1 trillion budget, released yesterday, won't survive the Democratic Congress in its present form.

But it promises to be a focal point for presidential candidates pushing their proposals to manage an economy crippled by the housing slump and a federal budget straining under the weight of war.

Bush's proposals come as no surprise: He would increase the Pentagon budget by 7.5 percent, while restricting or freezing spending for Medicare, Medicaid and a host of domestic programs.

Medicare's growth would be reduced from an average of 7.2 percent to 5 percent a year. That means cutting payments to hospitals and other providers as healthcare costs skyrocket.

Bush's plan would restrict spending for other programs, including ones that support energy efficiency in homes when oil is near $100 a barrel; veterans' medical programs in wartime; and food programs for poor pregnant women and their children, even as food costs rise.

And while Bush's plan would increase the budget deficit to near-record levels - $407 billion in 2009 - it would make Bush's signature tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. Those tax cuts are supported by Republican front-runners John McCain and Mitt Romney.

It also assumes the continued use of the alternative minimum tax, which would increase the tax burden on the middle class.

And it doesn't include realistic funding for the wars Bush started: $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, and nothing after that. Future spending on the wars will depend on the next president.

Government budgets reflect our values as a society: What we spend money on is what we value. The president's budget reflects his values. The question is, will those of the next president reflect ours?