Il governo Bush a casa sua... e da noi?

[Cristiana Scoppa <cscoppa at lcnet.it>]

The War at Home



Source : New York Times (USA)



New York Times; April 20, 2003; Editorial
EDITORIAL: The War at Home

While President Bush pursues the fight against terrorism and the military
effort in Iraq, he's also staging a new battle on the home front for his
domestic programs. Last week he began by stumping the country for his tax
cut plan, a cornerstone of his presidential ambitions. Mr. Bush's
successful prosecution of the war in Iraq does not mean that Americans must
now fall in line behind his misguided domestic agenda. On almost every
front, it is a disaster, a national train wreck that must be headed off for
the country's well-being.

From the beginning, the key to Mr. Bush's domestic vision has been massive
tax cuts, which Republican ideologues see both as a reward to the
well-heeled, and a key to starving the government of money that might be
spent on programs like health care or housing. Conservatives once viewed
deficits as the height of bad fiscal policy. Now, they embrace them. There
is no danger that a government swimming in red ink will come up with new
programs to protect the environment, to extend health care for the poor or
provide affordable housing to the homeless. No matter how much the
president says he wants to improve education, the deficit is an all-purpose
excuse to avoid helping public school districts overcome crippling cuts
imposed by local governments that are teetering on insolvency.

The tax cuts are also meant to give Mr. Bush the appearance of fighting to
improve the economy. But if the pain of millions of newly unemployed
workers was the real point, Mr. Bush would have paid at least some
attention to a recent report by the Republicans' hand-picked head of the
Congressional Budget Office. Using the administration's own
tax-cut-friendly method of analysis, he concluded that further tax
reductions would have no notable impact on the economy. Yet, the president
presses on for another $550 billion in cuts over 10 years.

The tax cuts are not the White House's only goal. The nation learned
shortly after Mr. Bush's inauguration that he was not going to govern from
the center, as many had assumed given the election results. Instead, he has
permitted his far-right base to take over vast swaths of domestic policy
making. What the public has not noticed is how far that effort has already
succeeded. Using low-profile executive actions and administrative changes,
Mr. Bush has quietly accomplished what he wants behind the scenes. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development, for instance, recently
announced plans to allow public funds to be used to help build churches, as
long as part of the building is used to provide social services. That was
one of the administration's multiple attempts to blur the line between
church and state. As the Senate amended the "faith-based initiative" to try
to keep that separation clear, administration aides were assuring reporters
that what went out in the legislature was being reinstated through
executive order.

Drawing precisely the wrong lesson from history, the Bush administration
has slashed away at core constitutional protections in the name of fighting
terrorism. The Justice Department claims the power to hold American
citizens in prison indefinitely without access to lawyers simply because
they have been labeled "enemy combatants." Terrorism suspects have been
held in secret detention, their hearings closed to the public. Meanwhile,
members of Congress who try to question Attorney General John Ashcroft
about such policies are either ignored or accused of aiding the enemy.

In the area of the environment Mr. Bush is still struggling to get his
energy bill through Congress, with the famous provision opening the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. But the president has been
much more efficient outside the Capitol, using executive fiat to ease
protection of the national forests and public lands to accelerate
commercial logging and oil and gas exploration. Meanwhile, his
administration sat on the sidelines while industrial groups challenged some
of the most useful environmental initiatives of the Clinton administration
in court, including the prohibition of commercial activity in 60 million
roadless acres of the national forests.

Turning the federal courts into places unfriendly to environmentalists,
civil rights advocates, corporate whistle-blowers and anyone else who
attempts to do battle against the interests of big business is another part
of the president's domestic battle plan. There are plenty of qualified
moderate judges who have a record of deciding cases on the merits. But Mr.
Bush seems intent on promoting nominees with a background of knee-jerk
right-wing ideology and cramming them down the country's throat. He has
pushed nominees who reflexively rule against people seeking protection
under antidiscrimination law, or workers attempting to sue their employers.
Another nominee has compared abortion to the Holocaust. Democrats who
oppose them are labeled as obstructionists.

The one key credential linking all the Bush nominees to the federal bench
has been a strong record in opposition to abortion. While as a candidate
Mr. Bush barely mentioned abortion, opposition to reproductive rights has
been one of the strongest underlying themes of his presidency. Even the
much-touted AIDS money for Africa is caught up in the far right's
opposition to effective birth control and AIDS prevention strategies.

ï The president makes a good political general. One of his canniest
strategies has been to raise the bar so high that even the smallest of
compromises seems like moderation. ANWR has become the red herring of the
environmental wars; any energy bill that protects the caribou from the oil
drillers will be seen as a victory even if it contains ridiculous tax
breaks for the coal, oil and gas industries and does nothing to deal with
the problem of gas-guzzling automobiles. Somehow, a budget with $350
billion in tax cuts ó at a time of war and enormous government deficits ó
has come to be seen as a great victory for the president's opponents. With
defeats like this, Mr. Bush never needs to win.

Mr. Bush's willingness to take big gambles, to push for what he wants no
matter the consequences, are likely to leave an imprint on America far
beyond his tenure in office. We hope that he's successful in the fight
against terrorism, and that he brings about a more stable Mideast and a
democratic Iraq. But on the domestic front, almost every success cripples
the nation's ability to move toward a happy, prosperous future. This is one
war we hope he loses..

Server sicuro protetto con antivirus ed antispam