Those numbers still scale whether you're talking about total or discretionary spending, which means science/grants are an even smaller fraction of the 3%. Why

Those numbers still scale whether you're talking about total or discretionary spending, which means science/grants are an even smaller fraction of the 3%. Why start cutting from the smallest piece of the pie? My point is that defense spending is already outsized and increasing while we cut science spending. Instead of increasing it, why not cut it and provide 100x the savings before cutting science spending? Doesn't seem like such a hard choice.