WASHINGTON (CNN) - A sharply divided Congress began debating the Bush administration's $2.6 trillion budget for fiscal year 2006 Tuesday, with Democrats sniping at administration officials on topics such as the nation's Social Security system and the deficit.

"This budget is not going to put us on a path to balancing the budget. Not in five years, not in 10 years, not in 20 years," Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C. and the ranking minority member on the House Budget Committee, told Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. "It would put us on a path to endless deficits and a Mount Everest of mountainous debt."

Bolten was among administration officials defending the budget, telling the committee it "meets the priorities of the nation and builds on the progress of the last four years."

Treasury Secretary John Snow, before the House Ways and Means Committee, said the budget -- which would impose the largest cuts since the Reagan administration -- is designed to continue economic growth that has occurred over the past four years.

But a priority, he said, is dealing with the nation's $10.4 trillion deficit. "This shouldn't be a partisan issue, the issue of our children's well-being."

Committee member Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., was among those holding Snow's feet to the fire. Rangel said he plans to issue a news release saying the president's Social Security proposal is dead, as it is not included in the budget and probably would not be included in next year's, as the administration would not want Republicans to touch "that third rail" in an election year.

Also, he said, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be over as well, as their costs are not in the budget. The administration has said the $80 billion Bush is seeking for military action is a supplemental to the budget.

He also asked Snow about Social Security, wondering when members of Congress will receive the president's proposal and whether any Democrat is working with Bush on the plan.

"I think we need to rise above partisan politics on this one," Snow said.

Meanwhile, Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, had harsh words for naysayers as the hearing opened, saying it's easy for Democrats to criticize the budget, yet fail to offer an alternative.

"You are not allowed in this committee to say 'no' without an alternative," Nussle told committee members. "'No' is not an answer. We're going to come up with alternatives and solutions."

He said he was already hearing criticism on cuts made in the budget, which was transmitted Monday to members of Congress. "In Washington, a cut is described too often as a decrease in an anticipated increase," he said.

Spratt, however, said: "It's daunting to consider where we were five years ago, as we sat here on a surplus of $236 billion."

Nussle agreed a surplus was nice, but said, "I don't want to go back. Would I want to do that at the cost of our military ... and not defend the country? Would I not want to fund homeland security and protect the country?"

He also referenced the war in Iraq and the war on terror, saying, "These are the reasons why we're in deficit, folks. We made deliberate decisions in a bipartisan way -- at least they were then. Now, we're acting like, 'Gosh, I don't know how we got here.' Just about every member of this committee did, with a glad heart, vote for many of those proposals."

Twelve of 23 major government agencies will receive less money under the new budget. Among the 150 government programs slated for significant cuts or elimination are health benefits for more affluent veterans, federal subsidies for Amtrak and grants for school literacy and anti-drug programs.