Hi Lawry, M'mm . . . Your excerpt from the Boston Globe (below) is very curious . . . .
On the face of it, Bush's proposed increase in defence spending is quite extraordinary. It seems to me that there can be up to three explanations -- or perhaps all of them. One is that Bush is indeed planning a major war against a foreign power such as Iraq and really does need all the new equipment. The other is that he's doing some old-fashioned Keynesian pump-priming -- which means that despite the emollient words that Greenspan is expected to say in a day or two about the American economy the adminstration do not really believe him. The other is that Bush is going to spend an awful lot of money on home defence against terrorism and wants to disguise it within an even larger figure so that the American public will not be scared. When you think about it, the 11 September plane crashes, although well-planned and largely successful from Osama bin Laden's point of view, were really quite amateur efforts. If, in the ensuing months, a state secret service were to plan terrorist attacks on America then infinitely more destruction and loss of life could ensue (nuclear bombs in suitcases and all that). Also, there's the curious matter of the anthrax scares. According to reports in our newspapers a day or two ago, the FBI apparently know who did it (someone who worked in an official defence biochemical establishment) but cannot be arrested for fear of revealing official information. Perhaps the Americans want to beef up security almost everywhere. It's now 2.00am. I hadn't planned to write the above until my usual pot of tea at a slightly later hour of the morning, but I've had a major water leak and have been poking around among the valves and water tanks in my attic. So I'm soaking wet and am waiting to see whether the problem is solved before I go back to bed. If you or FW hears nothing from me later on today you can take it that my office has become submerged and that my better-half and I have gone to that great water resort in the sky. Keith At 09:04 25/02/02 -0500, you wrote: > >In support of my concern that the US economy is in for a bad time: > >Excerpted from the Boston Globe of 2/19/02: > > >"For the next fiscal year, the Bush administration proposes to spend nearly >$400 billion on defense. Last week, in testimony before the House Budget >Committee, Lawrence J. Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations and Business >Leaders for Sensible Priorities, put this figure in perspective. It >represents a 30 percent increase over last year; a level 15 percent more, >averaged annually, than what the Cold War required; the biggest budget jump >since Vietnam. If approved, America's military spending will exceed the >total defense outlays ''of the next 15 countries in the world combined.'' >This year's ''increase of $48 billion alone is more than the total military >budgets of every nation in the world.'' > >"This budget request, Korb observed, surpasses any budget that Donald >Rumsfeld sent to Congress when he served as secretary of defense during the >height of the Cold War. But doesn't Rumsfeld's war on terrorism require such >urgent increases? No. As Korb notes, the war in Afghanistan has cost about >$6 billion, and the budget for next year allocates $10 billion for the >ongoing conflict against terrorism - both figures falling far short of the >new increases which, Korb argues, will push the budget total to $580 billion >by 2007. > >"The proposal funds programs and equipment that will play no role in any >conceivable war against stateless terrorists - high-tech aircraft, >submarines, tanks, the missile defense system. Fulfilling just these >commitments will cost more than $100 billion. All of which amounts, in >Korb's view, to ''throwing ... money at the Pentagon and refusing to make >choices.'' > >Korb's is a lonely voice in this debate, and, incidentally, not one raised >from the left. He served as assistant secretary of defense under Ronald >Reagan." > >Lawry > > > > __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
