"Defense secretary scores big wins on weapons cuts"

From the Associated Press:

Robert Gates is on a roll. Question is, how long will it last?

The politically savvy defense secretary scored big legislative wins when the Senate voted convincingly to end production of the high-priced F-22 jet fighter and killed an aircraft engine project that he says isn't needed.

Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, is on a campaign to change the way the Pentagon does business. In his sights are unnecessary or financially troubled weapons that siphon money away from the troops and gear required for irregular wars now being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yet getting Capitol Hill to go along with further deep cuts to big-ticket programs remains a huge challenge as lawmakers claw to protect the jobs these projects create in their states and districts. Others have serious disagreements with the Obama administration's strategic choices...Full story

While I disagree withe the defense secretary on the need for the F-22 Fighter plane (see my previous post on the subject here), I will reserve judgment on his other proposals.

What bothers me about this is not the headline of my post (taken from the title of the AP article), but rather that I have not seen any equivalent headlines for any of the other 14 cabinet departments.

The President said he would scrub the budget for unnecessary items and cut them. Why does he seem to be focusing on cutting the defense budget, while proposing massive increases for the rest of the federal budget?

Another quote from the article:

...The grounding of the $65 billion F-22 program that played out last week was aided by special circumstances, according to defense policy analysts.

The Obama White House used substantial political capital to stop F-22 production at 187 aircraft, threatening to veto any legislation that included money for more new planes. It's unlikely such an effort will often be repeated given the stuttering economy, health care reform and other serious challenges the administration needs Capitol Hill's help with...

We are throwing around trillions, yet the President burns valuable political capital to save a few billion a year by cutting funding for the most advanced fighter plane the world has known (not to mention the 95,000 critical defense industrial base jobs that are at stake)?

Can anyone explain this to me?