Le gouvernement f\u00c3\u00a9d\u00c3\u00a9ral am\u00c3\u00a9ricain reste un monstre bureaucratique dont la taille ne diminuera sans doute pas sous la gouverne du nouveau pr\u00c3\u00a9sident. Le gouvernement am\u00c3\u00a9ricain est moins imposant et moins interventionniste que la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux, ce qui fait en sorte que l ‘\u00c3\u00a9conomie am\u00c3\u00a9ricaine est devenu le dynamo du monde. Et il est sans doute pr\u00c3\u00a9f\u00c3\u00a9rable d’\u00c3\u00aatre gouvern\u00c3\u00a9 par des r\u00c3\u00a9publicains qui sont th\u00c3\u00a9oriquement en faveur du libre march\u00c3\u00a9 que par des socialistes, communistes et verts europ\u00c3\u00a9ens. <\/p>\n
Mais s’imaginer que les \u00c3\u2030tats-Unis sont un paradis capitaliste et que la nouvelle administration Bush instaurera une politique de laisser faire encore plus accentu\u00c3\u00a9e n’a vraiment rien \u00c3\u00a0 voir avec la r\u00c3\u00a9alit\u00c3\u00a9. <\/p>\n
Comme l’explique l’extrait ci-dessous d’un article du Washington Times, Bush n’a absolument pas parl\u00c3\u00a9 pendant sa campagne d’abolir quelque agence ou programme f\u00c3\u00a9d\u00c3\u00a9ral que ce soit. Il a propos\u00c3\u00a9 plusieurs nouvelles d\u00c3\u00a9penses – en \u00c3\u00a9ducation, en sant\u00c3\u00a9, en services sociaux. Et comme les d\u00c3\u00a9penses publiques augmentent d\u00c3\u00a9j\u00c3\u00a0 de 5% par ann\u00c3\u00a9e – le double de l’inflation!! – il faudra sans doute couper dans celles-ci pour permettre les r\u00c3\u00a9ductions d’imp\u00c3\u00b4t propos\u00c3\u00a9es de 1,6 trillions $, explique un de ses conseillers \u00c3\u00a9conomiques. <\/p>\n
Vu de Montr\u00c3\u00a9al, Paris ou Bruxelles, les \u00c3\u2030tats-Unis ont de nombreux attraits sur le plan \u00c3\u00a9conomique. Mais Washington n’a rien d’un gouvernement libertarien. Et le gouvernement f\u00c3\u00a9d\u00c3\u00a9ral reste un monstre bureaucratique dont la taille ne diminuera sans doute pas sous la gouverne du nouveau pr\u00c3\u00a9sident. <\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a0John F. Cogan, a budget analyst at the Hoover Institution here who has been working on Mr. Bush’s budget plan, said that there was more than enough room in the burgeoning tax surpluses to pay for the president’s sweeping tax cuts and new spending initiatives, but that some budget cuts will be needed to hold down the overall growth in government spending.
\n(…)
\n Mr. Cogan, who also helped to design Mr. Bush’s tax-cut plan, said government spending is growing 5 percent a year, nearly twice the inflation rate, and \u00ab\u00a0we have to get under that.\u00a0\u00bb
\n(…)
\n That document will detail the size and cost of Mr. Bush’s proposals, including his tax cuts, which will total between $1.6 trillion and $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years, plus other spending plans for education, health care, an anti-missile defense system, prescription drug benefits and social welfare assistance to religious groups, among other things.
\n(…)
\n Throughout his election campaign, Mr. Bush’s message focused on his proposals to increase spending for education, beef up military readiness and make prescription drugs available to the needy. He did not talk much in his campaign about restraining spending or making budget cuts in certain areas. If there was a federal agency or program that Mr. Bush thought was wasteful or unnecessary, he never shared that feeling with the voters.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n
Martin Masse
\nMontr\u00c3\u00a9al<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"