Posing a question is not diverting; dodging them is.
Meanwhile, no. The Executive does not submit a budget, per se. It submits a budget request, or if will: a request for spending authorizations to fund priorities, which can be a range of things, not limited to, but very-much inclusive of stuff urged by former Admins and known to be widely supported in Congress -- and thus must be considered within the context of stuff that has to be paid for.
For example:
Bush urged passage of Medicare Part D, a gift to Big Pharma and widely considered one of the worst bills, fiscally, in US history. But it's now there, and must be paid for, and wishing the Boehner Congress to repeal a whopper gift to one of their more beloved special interests is folly. So it's gotta be funded, like it or not.
Bush Admin overnight, nearly, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, Home Land Security, the boondoggle to end all boondoggles, whose new HQ will surpass the Pentagon in size. It's far more than we need, but we have it. Also, we have the fear by presidents and the Lege that cutting it is political suicide if some attack were to follow soon after. So once again, like it or not, it's gotta be in there since it's a cost that's not going anywhere.
So one should ask, if they hate new spending programs, who created what? Who's the real culprit in creating a larger government and the need for more revenue to cover it?
Shall we parse? You know, drill it down to the actual specifics?