Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Oceani di dollari per la Difesa USA

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1208/p01s02-uspo.html
US spending surges to historic level
Vote on gargantuan bill in Congress caps a year of stunning growth in
government.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - President Bush and the Republican-led Congress are spending
money at a rate not seen since World War II - and America's expanding war on
terrorism isn't the main reason.
Spending for national security, it is true, has surged due to the military
effort in Iraq and stepped-up homeland security.
But judging by a bill that Congress is taking up Monday, the lasting fiscal
legacy of the Bush administration will also include a historic rise in
domestic spending that could affect everything from consumer interest rates
to a fiscal landscape that could force epic tax increases in future.
The spending growth is punctuated this week by a single vote in the House
that wraps in all the spending leftovers - not all the money for troops, not
the big Medicare expansion - and totals $820 billion. That's as big as the
annual economic output of Sweden and Spain combined.
Behind the shift are several factors, notably the Republican Party's
changing strategy and the lapsing of self-imposed fiscal restraints in
Congress since Mr. Bush took office.
"The Republican party is simply not interested in small government now,"
says Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank. "They're worse than the Democrats they replaced."
The upshot: Federal spending per household is above $20,000 this year - a
level not seen since World War II caused military spending to surge. This
time, military spending is again a big factor, but accounts for less than
half of recent increases, the Heritage Foundation says.
It's not just all those pork projects crammed into the end-of-year spending
package that worries conservatives. Many concede that pet projects are the
price of getting out of Washington, no matter which party has control.
More broadly, what troubles many conservatives - and could open a rift
within the Republican Party - is Mr. Bush's apparent abandonment of "small
government" as a party mantra.
The 'price' of GOP power?
But long-time GOP conservatives are also beginning to say publicly that big
government may also be the price for any party that aspires to hold onto its
majority. Stung by electoral losses in 1996 and 1998, Republican leaders
dropped talk of abolishing the Department of Education and cutting
government. "It turned out the American people did not want a major
reduction of government," writes Rep. John Boehner (R) of Ohio in a position
paper released last week titled: "Are Republicans the Party of Big
Government?"
While Republicans would like to see government shrink, "new political
realities," including 9/11 and "the multitude of stakeholders in government
after years of liberal control" mean that Republicans often have to settle
for simply slowing its growth, writes Mr. Boehner, an architect of the GOP
takeover of the House in 1994. "Republicans have accepted such realities as
the burdens of majority governance."
Much of the $2.2 trillion that Washington is expected to spend in fiscal
year 2004 is for mandatory spending on Social Security and Medicare. But
so-called discretionary spending has also increased some 22 percent during
the Bush presidency, from $734 billion in 2002 to $873 billion in 2004.
The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan watchdog, calls this the "most
irresponsible year ever."
Biggest spending years
Federal spending is now at a level surpassed only during World War II, after
running about $18,000 per year in the 1990s.
Spending per household
1. 1944 $26,445
2. 1945 $25,572
3. 1943 $23,370
4. 2003 $20,399
SOURCE: HERITAGE FOUNDATION, CONSTANT DOLLARS
The House may approve the spending bill Monday. In the Senate passage is
also expected but the vote could be delayed, perhaps into the new year, by
Democratic maneuvering.
While critics decry billions of dollars of small "pork" projects, the bulk
of domestic spending is for major programs. Exhibit A is the expansion of
Medicare to include prescription drugs, which President Bush is expected to
sign into law Monday. Sold as a $400 billion reform, the real costs could
soar past $2 trillion in the second decade, as 76 million baby boomers begin
to retire into the system. Conservatives say it's a formula for massive
deficits and tax increases in the years to come.
Then, there's the $180 billion farm bill, passed just in time for 2002
elections, when farm states determined control of the Senate. It buried out
of sight any thought of rolling back the federal system of farm support,
which conservatives once pledged to abolish.
The president's signature No Child Left Behind Act increased education
spending by 33 to 68 percent, depending on how you calculate the numbers.
While lauding the Bush administration's annual tax cuts, conservatives worry
that what will determine taxes in the long run is what Washington spends.
Crunching Bush's numbers
The extent of the spending increase depends on how you cut the numbers. "The
president laid down a marker of keeping the growth in discretionary spending
for this fiscal year at 4 percent or below," says Chad Kolton, a spokesman
for the White House Office of Management and Budget. "Congress will meet
that target laid down by the president," not including the $87 billion that
Congress has already voted for supplemental defense spending in fiscal year
2004.
In fact, if you focus only on nondefense spending that the president can
control, the Bush record on fiscal discipline is even better, he adds.
Liberal budget analysts agree that there has been some squeeze on social
programs in the Bush years, especially in 2003 and 2004.
One reason for rising spending: The GOP's margin of control is tight in both
the House and the Senate. On Capitol Hill, more spending has always been a
formula for winning agreement on tight votes. In addition, key budget
restraints such as pay-as-you-go requirements have been allowed to sunset.
On Oct. 1, 2002, the two main enforcement provisions for budget discipline
on Capitol Hill were allowed to quietly expire. These include caps on
discretionary spending and PAYGO provisions, which require offsets for new
programs.

Namib ha scritto:
etc. non avrei niente da obiettare, se l'estensore dell'articolo si
ricordasse di dire anche che i Bush-republicans sono esattamente coloro i
quali hanno portato il GOP su posizioni liberal, (neo-conservatori),
tradendo la tradizione del repubblicanesimo americano, che è
protezionista, nazionalista e isolazionista, e facendolo diventare l'altra
faccia della medaglia dei deomcratici, che hanno sempre spinto per fare
dell'America la versione moderna del British Empire. Su tutto questo (e
molto altro) è assai istruttivo il libro di Patrick Buchanan (che è
rimasto oggi l'unico propugnatore del conservtorismo in America), dal
titolo 'A republic, not an Empire'. Segnalo anche il suo sito web, per chi
fosse interessato al punto di vista dei _veri_ conservatori americani,
dove si possono trovare i suoi articoli e un'analisis del fenomeno neocons
dal punto di vista dei conservatori classici (cioè quelli veri):
www.theamericancause.org
CDG
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it