> You didn't answer my question -- do you have any sort of proof that "discretionary spending" was actually invented by radical leftists?

What are you actually asking for?

Even if the first person to ever use the term was William F. Buckley (which I rather doubt), what matters is who popularized it into common usage, which requires a population of people who would then have to be categorized as left or right. But even that wouldn't work because people don't fit into boxes. A Republican who supports expanding Medicare is on the left of that issue regardless of their party affiliation. Are you asking me to write that PhD thesis?

Both sides do this. "Intelligence community" instead of "spy agencies" is one of the right's. You know which side invented it because of who benefits from it. The proof is cui bono.

And I never said it was invented by Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky. The left comprises the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. Do you want citations to such people using that term or taking advantage of it? Here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/...
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-floor-speech...

The right has come up with their own version of the lie, because the left generally uses "discretionary spending" to make the military budget look bigger (as with the OP), so the right now talks about "non-military (or non-defense) discretionary spending." That one is even worse. It cuts nearly the entire budget out of the budget. But it's a convenient lie whenever you want to cut "non-military discretionary spending" because it makes it look like five times as high a percentage of the budget than it really is.

> The situation is simple -- people like medicare and social security much better than the rest of government.

In no small part because their advocates have structured the language around them in order to make them immune from criticism.

For example, social security writes a bigger check to people who made more money while they were working. It might make more sense to make payments more uniform by reducing payments at the high end by a small percentage. And a small percentage of social security is an enormous amount of money. As in, 1% of social security is larger than the entire NSF budget. But if we consider only "discretionary spending" then we can't even consider that. It becomes unthinkable.

> But you're still arguing for dumbing down the language to alter how people feel about government programs.

Removing biased terms is quite the opposite of dumbing down. It's not even like they're using "discretionary" in the same sense as it's used in economics and personal finance -- in that sense the only non-discretionary part of the government budget would be the small subset of the military necessary for the government's survival and not one penny of social security.

I would love to see some proof of your position that undoing an Orwellian language change is an Orwellian language change. That's one heck of a status quo bias.

> Please refrain from these ludicrous, childish accusations about radical leftists and whatnot when you don't have proof and are in fact yourself engaging in Orwellian language games. Take 5 seconds to appreciate what an asshole that makes you look like, OK?

You're the first person in this thread to use the term "radical leftists" and ending your posts with ad hom attacks says more about you than the person you're describing.