Consideration and approval by the US Congress of the draft military budget for the next fiscal year 1 is an important political event in the United States. In the course of it, the activity of the internal political mechanism of militarization of the country is clearly manifested. Discussions and decisions taken by the legislature on the military budget allow us to judge the balance of power in the American ruling circles on military policy issues.

The official budget process in the United States2 consists of three stages . At the first stage, the draft federal budget is developed in the executive authorities. It is characterized by increased competition among executive departments for more adequate representation of their interests in the budget document. The Pentagon, which defends the interests of the military - industrial complex, is particularly active in snatching a large share of the pie. This phase ends with the President's submission of a draft budget to Congress in January and February of each year. The project is a document that sets out in figures the basic principles of socio-economic activity of the American government. It reflects the priorities of the US ruling class, as the administration understands them.

The second stage is the discussion of the budget document in the legislative bodies. Due to the specific role of the representative body of power in the US political system, due to the order of its formation, the structure of decision-making, it reflects a wider range of interests of the American society than the executive branch. This is the basis for temporary disagreements between the president and Congress, who faithfully serve the ruling class. During the legislative budget process, priorities are clarified, and the president's programs are adjusted to take into account the multipolar interests of the American business community. This is the purpose of the multi-stage decision-making process in Congress. The House budget Committees, based on preliminary assessments of military programs submitted by the respective committees, draft the first and second budget resolutions, which are adopted by the House of Representatives and the Senate in May and September. The resolutions set the amount of income and expenses for all types of projects.

Fiscal Year 1 in the United States begins on October 1.

2 For more information about the budget process in the USA, see: Katasonov Yu. V. Budget reform, its economic and political meaning-USA-Economics, Politics, Ideology, 1977, N 4. On financing US military programs, see: Svyatov G. I. On US policy in the field of building armed forces and limiting weapons. Voprosy istorii, 1978, No. 2.

page 67

categories of government activity and serve as guidelines for legislative and appropriating committees. Legislative committees, in this case the armed Forces affairs committees, review military construction programs and determine the limits of funds that can be spent on them. These figures are included in the authorization bills, which are then passed by both Houses. In turn, the appropriations committees determine the funds that should be allocated in a given fiscal year for each military program. Military appropriations bills (bills) are also approved by the Chambers. The adoption of authorizing and allocating bills ends the legislative stage of the budget process.

During the development of budget bills, congressional committees are subjected to intensive processing of various groups interested in allocating funds for certain programs. This feature, which has become typical of the American legislative process, was pointed out by V. I. Lenin. Describing bourgeois parliamentarism, he wrote: "The bourgeoisie in the old parliamentary countries has perfectly learned to be hypocritical and to deceive the people with thousands of tricks, passing off bourgeois parliamentarism as "democracy in general" or "pure democracy" and the like, skilfully hiding the millions of connections of parliament with the stock exchange and capitalists, using a corrupt, corrupt press and using all means to let them get away with it. "the power of money, the power of capital" 3 . Congressional committees that allocate funds for military construction are subjected to increased scrutiny by the military-industrial lobby, which seeks to increase military spending. The forms of lobbying are many-sided. Direct contacts with legislators, such as meetings and phone calls, are widely used. As noted by the prominent American economist V. Perlo, "some of these lobbyists use methods of pressure, methods of "twisting the hands" of political figures interested in corporate donations to election campaigns, or hints that speaking out in favor of disarmament is unlikely to be the best way to advance in a political career. " 4 The main goal of such efforts by the military industry to ensure the sale of its products is to increase the total cost of weapons, regardless of their distribution among firms. This general approach is used by various associations of military contractors, as well as some military organizations and so-called patriotic societies, although most of them advocate spending on specific types of weapons.

The final stage is the signing of budget bills by the president, after which they become laws and serve as the financial basis for the implementation of military programs. All three stages of the budget cycle are closely related. Executive and legislative authorities actively interact with each other at each stage 5 .

Three years (from 1980 to 1983) of cooperation between the Reagan administration and Congress in developing the principles and forms of budget policy resulted, on the one hand, in the approval of the most significant peacetime increase in military spending, and on the other - unprecedented reduction in domestic programs, which occurred against the background of a prolonged economic downturn. Attempts of the balancro administration-

3 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 39, p. 166.

4 Perlo V. Militarism and industry, Moscow, 1963, p. 30.

5 On the nature of relations between the executive and legislative authorities, see: Gantman V., Mikoyan S. USA: state, Politics, Elections, Moscow, 1969; Belonogov A.M. White House and Capitol. Partners and rivals. M. 1974; system of Government of the United States. M. 1976; Barenboim P. B. the Relationship between the President and Congress of the United States in the field of financial powers. - Vestnik MSU, series pravo, 1977, N 1; Mishin A. A. Gosudarstvennoe pravo SSHA [State Law of the USA]. Moscow, 1978.

page 68

they failed in our budget. Congress has given its full support to the new administration's plans and efforts to build up the country's military capabilities.

Presented to Congress in March 1981, the program of the new government contained a plan for implementing the main provisions of the Republican election program, among which the "rearmament of America"took an important place. The Reagan administration, which came to power on a wave of unusually active conservatism, using false theses about the alleged weakness of the United States in the military field and the notorious "Soviet threat", announced its intention to strengthen "America's defense in all directions." 6 The sharp increase in the military budget, Washington leaders said, should reinforce the new" active " foreign policy of the administration 7 . Disguising their plans with false " arguments "about the Soviet Union's buildup of military efforts and the alleged lag of the United States in the military field, contrary to the estimates of influential experts confirming the existence of strategic parity between the USSR and the United States8, Pentagon representatives persistently insisted on the" insufficiency " of budget allocations for armaments 9 .

Reflecting the views of extremely reactionary circles of the ruling class, the Reagan administration announced the most extensive and expensive program of US military buildup. The five-year military construction plan called for a more than twofold increase in the military budget , from $ 162 billion in 1981 to $ 343 billion in 1986. The new administration surpassed Carter's military budget program by 4% and 13%, respectively, in fiscal 1981 and 1982. The increases extended to more than 450 military programs .10
The Reagan plan provided for the expansion of military construction in the following areas: First, for the 1981 - 1982 financial year, an additional $ 11.5 billion was allocated to expand and accelerate current programs and improve the operational capabilities of existing military equipment. Secondly, funds for the modernization of military equipment increased by $ 14.7 billion. Third, in solving the tasks of improving combat readiness, emphasis was placed on ensuring that the armed forces had a sufficient number of personnel, and the necessary qualifications. An additional $ 3.3 billion was allocated for this purpose. Fourth, it was planned to expand the construction of military bases near the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Allocations for all branches of the armed forces were increased: the army - by $ 9 billion, the Air Force-by $ 7 billion, the Navy and Marine Corps - by $ 18 billion 11 .

The main focus was on strategic weapons. Describing the Reagan program, Secretary of Defense C. Weinberger said that it "will increase and create the most powerful strategic weapons planned and funded by previous generations."

6 Armed Forces Journal, 1981, March, p. 56.

7 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (CQWR), 7.II.1981, p. 294; US News and World Report, 16.III.1981, p. 24; Newsweek, 6.IV 1981, p. 21; The New Republic, 7.II.1981, p. 18.

8 See The American Threat and the Protest of Millions, Moscow, 1983, pp. 55-68.

9 Armed Forces Journal, March 1981, pp. 55 - 68.

10 Calculated by: Budget Revisions. FY 1982. Washington. March 1981, p. 127; CQWR, 7.III.1981, pp. 425, 426. The main parameters of the US military budget are usually developed two years before the beginning of the fiscal year for which the budget will be prepared, and the detailed planning cycle begins almost 18 months in advance. Therefore, each new administration has the opportunity to make only individual adjustments to the military budgets of the current and subsequent fiscal years.

11 Armed Forces Journal, 1981, March, p. 55.

page 69

by administrations " 12 . Among the combat components of conventional forces, emphasis was placed on expanding the Navy, primarily its offensive elements. Declaring sea supremacy a necessary condition for security, the Administration increased the number of ship personnel planned for the 1980s by 15% and brought the number of regular Naval warships planned for 1990 to 610 units .13 In connection with the creation of the "rapid deployment forces", the build-up of air and sea transfer forces and assets was accelerated. At the same time, it was planned to create new types of weapons, including chemical weapons, to equip the ground forces. 14 One of the most influential American newspapers, assessing the president's policies, wrote that Reagan's new military budget, combined with large cuts in domestic spending, indicates a fundamental revision of national priorities, activating far-reaching ambitious efforts to expand the global military capabilities of the United States. 15 This militaristic course poses a serious threat to peace, since it is designed to try to ensure the United States of America's dominant position in the world, regardless of the interests of other States and peoples.

The Reagan administration's expanded military budget program received the full support of lawmakers, many of whom campaigned in 1980 under the banner of "strengthening the United States' defense capability. " 16 In both the Senate and House committees, almost all proposals to expand military construction (with a few exceptions) met with approval .17 The Armed Services Committees of both Houses of Congress, which had consistently voted for higher military spending than the White House had planned in previous years, unanimously supported Reagan's weapons plan. None of the Committees significantly changed their proposed level of military spending. For 1982, the Senate Committee approved $ 136.52 billion for procurement, weapons production, military research, and civil defense ($29.86 billion more than the administration requested). The Committee expressed the hope that the Administration would continue to follow the announced course, i.e. purchase the planned amount of weapons, etc., even if this required an increase in future appropriations. For the same purposes, the House Committee allocated $ 136.1 billion, or 31% more than was allocated for the previous year18 .

The passage of bills to allocate funds for military construction in a short time reflected the desire of the House military committees to pass major military programs through Congress before the debate on reducing civilian spending begins. In the summer of 1981, the President secured congressional support for all of his key programs - the largest tax and welfare cuts in American history, and the largest increases in military spending. The president "has a solid working majority in the House and Senate," even Democrats argued. According to the congressional research organization, 81.9% of lawmakers approved of platfor in their first year in office.-

12 Weinberger C. Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the Congress. FY 1983. Washington. 1982, pp. 1 - 39.

13 US News and World Report, 16.III.1981, pp. 24 - 25.

14 Armed Forces Journal, 1981, March, pp. 60, 62 - 63, 68.

15 International Herald Tribune, 6.III.1981, p. 5.

16 See Ivanov Yu. V., Silaeva E. M., Dzhaparidze T. 3. Changes in the Congress. - USA-economics, Politics, ideology, 1981, N 5.

17 CQWR,14.III.1981, p. 425; 11.IV.1981, pp. 629 - 630; 2.V.1981, p 778.

18 Ibid., 16.V.1981, p. 852; 18.VII.1981, p. 1309.

page 70

Reagan, which is considered the best result after L. Johnson, who in 1965 had the support of 93% of congressmen in Congress .19
The congressional position on Reagan's military-political course was determined by a number of factors. First, it should be borne in mind that the congressional balance of power changed as a result of the 1980 elections. A number of lawmakers who are traditional critics of military spending were defeated in the election. In both Chambers, the weight of conservative forces in favor of expanding military preparations has significantly increased .20 The increase in defense spending was supported by both parties. Conservatives-both Democrats and Republicans - now accounted for about half of the members in each chamber. In 1981, the Conservative coalition had 68 members in the Senate and 270 in the House of Representatives (60 and 243 in the previous Congress, respectively) .21 It was this coalition that Reagan relied on when he sought approval for his socio-economic and military programs. Second, the success of the president's military program at that time was largely based on working cooperation with congressional leaders, and especially on the strong support that the Republican leadership provided to the administration's military program. The Republican leader in the House of Representatives, R. Michael, told reporters:" We are here to push the president's agenda. " 22
During the transition period (i.e., from the time of the election until he officially took office), Reagan practiced meeting with congressional leaders from both parties. His ties to Congress were strengthened by his constant contacts with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, R. Dole, and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, J. R. R. Tolkien. Tower of London 23 . R. Dole and the finance committee he chairs, which has jurisdiction over medicare, social security, and other items that make up about 60% of the budget in total, were particularly prominent in Reagan's fiscal policy strategy. Dole and former committee chairman Robert Long, a Democrat, played a significant role in organizing bipartisan support in the House for plans to reduce social programs. Tower was one of Reagan's top military advisers, speaking on his behalf during the campaign. He was directly involved in the development of the military part of the Republican Party's election program, and during the transition period was one of Reagan's military advisers. As chairman of the Senate Committee, he actively pushed through plans to expand military construction and military spending, using for this purpose, in particular, committee hearings at which the Secretary of Defense was present. Tower presented a list of programs that committee members felt should be funded more. In particular, he proposed an increase of $ 7 billion in additional appropriations for 1981. Many Republican members of the committee favored a $ 50 billion increase in the military budget for fiscal year 1982, instead of the $ 30 billion the administration had planned. 24
The third reason for the president's budget plans passing through Congress almost unhindered was that Democratic leaders actually contributed to the fact that in both Chambers of Congress, the President's budget plans were not approved.-

19 Ibid., 1. I. 1982, p. 21.

20 For more information on this issue, see: Travkina N. M. Strengthening of militaristic sentiments in the US Congress in the late 70s. Voprosy istorii, 1982, No. 8, pp. 53-55.

21 CQWR, 9.I.1982, p 50.

22 Ibid., 28.II.1981, p. 329.

23 Ibid.. 24.I.1981. pp. 172 - 175.

24 Ibid.. 31.I.1981, p. 234.

page 71

The programs proposed by the President were not met with organized opposition. Explaining the tactics of the democratic leadership of Congress, Deputy leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives T. Foley pointed out that the Democrats will not allow themselves to be blamed for the failure of the "economic revival" program in the 1982 midterm elections .25 This is what the Reagan administration called a set of measures aimed at stimulating the economy. In the area of finance, this included cutting government spending, balancing the budget, and cutting taxes .26 As a result, lawmakers not only fully approved the President's military construction program for 1981, but also increased his request for arms purchases and R & D for fiscal 1982 by $ 419.4 million and his request for nuclear weapons programs for the Department of Energy by $ 123.8 million. 27 All strategic programs were approved with minor changes. Congress allocated funds for the development of a new land-based strategic missile with ten MX individual guidance warheads, the modernization of the old Minuteman-2 and Minuteman-3 ICBMs, the purchase of the B-1 bomber, and the development of a new version of the stealth aircraft, elusive for enemy air defense, as well as a submarine. Trident boats. Both Chambers have almost unanimously appropriated funds for key military construction programs .28
It is natural that at that time, along with the tendency to expand the scale of military preparations, real constraints on accelerated military construction began to come into effect more and more strongly. Already in the fall of 1981, the administration faced the first difficulties in implementing its military budget plans. Being essentially economic in nature, they gave an impetus to the development of a new political situation in the country. The Reaganomics creators ' calculations for a gradual revival of economic activity were not justified due to the beginning of a new decline in production, which led to a decrease in tax revenues and an increase in spending in such areas as the payment of unemployment benefits and others. The Tax Reduction Act passed in 1981 also contributed to the reduction of State revenues. All this has cast doubt on the reality of programs to balance the budget by 1984 and simultaneously increase military spending.

In early November, the president was forced to abandon one of his campaign promises-balancing the budget. The policy of strengthening military power has led to a reduction in social spending. In total, they were cut by $ 27 billion in 1981. Funding from the State budget for 250 social programs was suspended or reduced. The government's measures to "save" federal funds affected the low-income segments of the population the most. At the same time, in order to bring down the heat of dissatisfaction with the reduction of civilian programs, the administration was forced to go even to some (symbolic, according to members of Congress) a $ 13 billion reduction in military spending from 1982 to 1984. According to experts, these reductions did not significantly affect the armament programs29 . Thus, the military component of the Reagan platform was the most stable. The main efforts of the US administration were focused on its implementation.

Further deterioration of the economic situation and growing inflation-

25 Ibid., 28.II.1981, р. 380.

26 Ibid., 6.VI.1981, p. 681; 14.XI.1981, p. 2241; 5.XII.1981, p. 2401.

27 Ibid., 19.XII.1981, pp. 2434, 2535 - 2537.

28 Budget Revisions. FY 1982. Washington. March 1981, p. M-1.

29 Budget of the US Government. FY 1982. Washington. 1981; CQWR, 14.III.1981, pp. 433 - 452, 18.IV.1981, pp. 665 - 668, 19.IX.1981, p. 1771.

page 72

The redefinition of the government's socio-economic course in connection with the unprecedented growth of the budget deficit and the curtailment of social functions of the state increased the discontent of wide circles of American society. The economic crisis was increasingly seen as a consequence of the administration's malign policies and its policy of increasing military spending. Indicators of this process were public opinion polls, which began to record a drop in American support for the policy of increasing military spending .30 Representative S. Gunderson, a Republican from Wisconsin, said that it is not only anti-war organizations that demand a reduction in the rate of increase in military spending proposed by Reagan. Even conservative entrepreneurs who support Republicans believe that the United States will not achieve a revival of the economy until military spending, which is excessive, is reduced .31 In favor of curbing the arms race, the movement for the "freezing of nuclear weapons", which acquired a national scale by the fall of 1982, was also in favor of curbing the arms race. Under these circumstances, the budget program for the 1983 fiscal year, the first fully formulated by the Reagan administration, drew sharp criticism in the country. The White House envisaged continuing the course of accelerated growth in military spending. It was planned to allocate $ 221.1 billion for the needs of "national defense" in the 1983 fiscal year. Of these, the Department of Defense received $ 215.9 billion, or 11% more than the amount that Congress approved for the 1982 fiscal year. According to the budget powers that allow the government to assume financial obligations with future payment, respectively, 263 billion and 257 billion dollars 32 .

The discussion of the new budget was influenced by the midterm elections of 1982, which tend to sharpen the sensitivity of legislators to criticism from voters. The political climate in an election year has brought into focus issues such as rampant growth in military spending, unprecedented cuts in domestic programs, and widening budget deficits. A number of lawmakers hoped to acquire political capital on the eve of the elections by criticizing the budget for the 1983 fiscal year. Even before the bill was presented to Congress, Democratic Senator C. Levin of Michigan told reporters that from a political point of view, it is now beneficial for lawmakers to support some reduction in military spending. 33 Under the influence of socio-economic factors, some sober-minded politicians have become aware of the fragility of political consensus in favor of a sharp increase in US military power, which has developed in recent years under the influence of increased anti-Soviet propaganda. Speaker of the House of Representatives T. O'Neill said that the administration's military-political course is fraught with dangerous consequences for the American economy, which undoubtedly weaken the domestic political base of the "rearmament" policy .34
All this complex of economic and political processes has left its mark on the attitude of both individual legislators and political groups to the president's military - budgetary course, which, in particular, was manifested in the strengthening of sentiment in favor of curbing the announced pace of increasing military spending. One of the most prominent members of the budget committee, Democratic Senator E. Hollings, known as a supporter of military programs, in the first days of the debate proposed to freeze the growth of military spending. Later, he called for a reduction

30 The Washington Post, 13.11.1982.

31 Cit. by: Za rubezhom, 1982, N 51, p 4.

32 Budget of the US Government, FY 1983. Washington. 1982, pp. V-10 - 11.

33 CQWR, 27.II.1982, p. 471.

34 Cit. by: Za rubezhom, 1982, N 7, p. 1.

page 73

A $ 24 billion increase in the military budget (in 1979, he sought a 5% real increase in military spending, and in 1981, he called for additional appropriations to the 1982 fiscal year budget). S. Nunn, a Democrat, an influential member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who also traditionally supported high military spending, expressed his support for the creation of a new budget. He disagreed with such an accelerated growth rate of the military budget, noting that, in his opinion, Reagan's proposed budget for the 1983 fiscal year could destroy the domestic political base for increasing spending on weapons. Chairman of the House War Appropriations Subcommittee, J. R. R. Tolkien Addabbo said that $ 10 billion will be spent on the project. They can be easily withdrawn from the military budget and that he will seek to reduce it by another $ 5 billion. 35
Another characteristic feature of criticism of the administration's military budget policy, which began in late 1981, was the fact that it was made by representatives of the Republican Party. The 16 Republican senators first elected in November 1980 expressed serious concerns about the growing budget deficit in their letter to Reagan. They called on the President to "freeze federal spending at a reasonable level and increase military spending only at a pace determined by the most necessary national security needs." 36 The moderate wing of the Republican Party has become more active, concerned about the state of the economy and the decline in the president's popularity. It advocated increasing social and reducing military spending. Critical sentiments have also increased among Conservatives, the largest and most influential force in Congress.

Conservative dissatisfaction with the growing budget deficit and disappointment with the first results of Reaganomics, as well as increased divisions within the Republican Party, prompted its leaders in Congress to adjust the president's policies. They acknowledged that if they firmly followed Reagan's agenda, they would lose political influence in the midterm elections. Senate Majority Leader G. Baker, Chairman of the Finance Committee R. Dole and Chairman of the budget Committee P. Domenici, Republican leader in the House of Representatives R. Michael supported moderate Republicans who, on the eve of the midterm elections, raised the issue of reducing military spending in connection with cutting social programs. "If we are talking about reducing food stamps and the health care program, as well as reducing the budget deficit, then we need to take a critical approach to the largest program - military spending," said R. Dole. P. Domenici proposed to reduce military spending by $ 15 billion .37 The opportunistic nature of many speeches of this kind is obvious. However, they showed that in the ruling circles of the United States, along with the prevailing trend towards "military strengthening of America", under the influence of socio - economic difficulties aggravated by "Reaganomics", plans to revise the planned pace of military construction began to receive support. Both Democrats and influential members of the Republican Party have argued for a more rational approach to military spending. They demanded to find out what expenses are "really necessary", and which ones come from the desire to please the military-industrial complex.

The recognition by lawmakers of unfavorable economic and domestic political realities had very contradictory consequences

35 CQWR, 27. II. 1982, p. 311; 25. II. 1982, p. 467.

36 Ibid., 20.II.1982, p. 310.

37 Ibid., 16.I.1982, pp. 74, 76, 310.

page 74

for their military-budgetary decisions. For the 1983 fiscal year, $ 7 billion less was allocated under the sections "national defense" and the activities of the Ministry of Defense than the President had planned. The desire of lawmakers to reduce the growth rate of military spending was reflected in their decision to reduce the President's request for budget powers by $ 17 and $ 18 billion, respectively. 38 During the discussion in Congress, it was noted that these reductions were made mainly due to accounting recalculations and stricter rules for concluding contracts with arms suppliers. The weekly congressional affairs magazine wrote, "The Congressional Military Spending Decision for the 1983 fiscal year is more of an amplified version of the lawmakers' usual practice of somewhat narrowing the appropriations framework than an actual audit of the Pentagon's programs." 39
All major Pentagon programs have been approved by Congress. When the most prestigious element of the president's military plan - the MX strategic missile-met with strong opposition in the country, Congress postponed a decision on it until it was determined how to base it and withheld funds for the purchase of Pershing-2 intermediate-range nuclear missiles until the results of their test are received. These decisions were intended to demonstrate the existence of" strict " legislative control over military construction. One of the few major items excluded from the draft budget by members of the conciliation commission of both Houses of Congress was appropriations for the resumption of chemical weapons production, which had been frozen for 13 years. Two other key programs - the start of construction of two Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and the purchase of the first B-1 bombers-were approved by Congress without significant changes. The lawmakers allocated funds for all strategic programs-modernization of the B-52 bomber, purchases of cruise missiles, the tenth Trident submarine, Trident-1 ballistic missiles, deployment of Trident-2 missiles, etc. Consequently, all major arms procurement programs for the Army and Navy have received congressional support .40 Thus, Reagan received an unprecedented mandate from Congress to strengthen military buildup in peacetime. The budget decisions of the President and Congress have created a solid financial foundation for a new round of the arms race.

The environment in which military construction plans for the 1984 fiscal year were developed and adopted was different from the previous two years of the Reagan presidency. First, the midterm elections of 1982 were unfavorable for the most militaristic and strictly pro-Reagan candidates .41 This has correspondingly strengthened the position of more moderate proponents of armaments in Congress. According to a survey conducted by The New York Times in conjunction with CBS, 75% of members of the new House of Representatives voted in favor of reducing the pace of military buildup, compared with 69% in the previous composition. The number of opponents of additional cuts in domestic social programs increased from 33% to 55% 42 . Secondly, both the President's policy and the behavior of lawmakers began to be affected in a certain way by the preparations for the next presidential election and the upcoming presidential election.-

38 Calculated from: Budget of the US Government, FY 1983, 1984. Washington. 1982, 1983, pp. V-10, V-8.

39 CQWR, 16.I.1982, p. 132.

40 Ibid., pp. 122, 132 - 135.

41 Ibid., 15.I.1983, p. 94.

42 The New York Times, 13.XII.1982.

page 75

early re-election of members of Congress. The need to take into account the domestic political situation began to add tension to relations between the president and the Congress. Reagan's desire to push his most prestigious programs through Congress without loss, on the one hand, and the efforts of lawmakers to demonstrate independence of their decisions from the executive branch, on the other, now have a more noticeable effect on the course of budget battles.

Even before the draft budget for the 1984 fiscal year was submitted to the legislature, Reagan launched a program that, according to him, focused on bipartisan support. Its goal is to reduce federal spending by $ 43 billion in order to reduce the budget deficit, which is projected to reach $ 189 billion in 1984 .43 These measures included freezing all government spending, including social security programs, pension payments, and health care funding, at the 1983 level. The only exception was military expenditures 44 . The president's decision to cut military spending growth plans by $ 8 billion was heavily touted. However, half of this amount was supposed to be found by revaluing the level of inflation and reducing fuel costs, and the second half - by freezing the salary of military personnel and reducing combat training programs. The arms procurement program has remained virtually intact. Congress rightly pointed out the ostentatious nature of this review of military expenditures .45
In the draft federal budget for 1984 submitted to Congress on January 31, 1983, the share of the military budget is defined as 28.9%. In 1980, under Carter, it was 23.6% 46 . Military spending is expected to increase by 10.3% compared to the previous year. 34% of the military budget is allocated for the purchase of weapons. Moreover, by 1988, spending on this item is expected to increase to 39%. The largest increase in military spending is envisaged under the strategic nuclear weapons program. Spending on them will increase from $ 20.6 billion to $ 28.2 billion. Almost half of this amount goes to two strategic programs-the MX missile and the B-1 bomber .47 Emphasis is placed on basic military research and development, most of which is of strategic importance. Since 1982, military R & D has increased by 45%, while civilian R & D has only increased by 3%. In the 1984 fiscal year, it is planned to spend $ 26.8 billion on military research, which is 23% more than in the previous year48.

From the point of view of prospects for military construction, the military budget for the year 1984 is of particular importance. It does not just set the framework for military spending for the next fiscal year, but also determines the level of military spending and the direction of military construction for all 80 years. The fact is that the draft military budget provides for financing the production of a whole series of new major military programs. The cost of building 100 MX missiles is estimated at $ 33 billion. The production of B-1 bombers, according to experts, will cost $ 40 billion. As part of the previously approved long-term plan for the creation of 610 warships, it is planned to build two giant Nimitz-class aircraft carriers

43 US News and World Report, 7.II.1983 p. 21.

44 CQWR, 19.I.1983, pp. 188, 227; The Wall Street Journal, 4.II.1983, p. 2.

45 CQWR, 5.II.1983, p. 245.

46 U. S. News and World Report, 14.II.1983, p. 71.

47 Budget of the US Government, FY 1984. Washington. 1983, pp. V-8; CQWR. 5.II.1983, pp. 250 - 252; US News and World Report, 28.III.1983, p. 28.

48 CQWR, 5.II.1983, p. 300.

page 76

worth $ 6.8 billion. It is also planned to launch the production of the Navy fighter "F-18" (the cost of the program is 39 billion dollars). The program for the construction of 7,000 M-1 tanks is estimated at $ 19 billion 49 . Thus, the budget for fiscal year 1984 serves as a new step in the United States ' consistent policy of massive arms buildup.

The congressional review of the draft military budget took place amid growing concern in various circles of the American public about the unprecedented federal budget deficit and the gradual realization that without changing the pace of increasing military spending, this problem will not be solved. In January 1983, 500 leading representatives of business and financial circles, emphasizing the negative impact of the budget deficit on the economic situation in the country, launched a nationwide propaganda campaign under the slogan of significant spending cuts, including military ones. In March 1983, for the first time in history, the National Governors Association passed a document urging the Administration to halve its projected military budget growth rate. A number of influential trade unions50 criticized the plans to reduce social and increase military spending . This pressure on the president forces him to adjust his military budget plans to a certain extent.

On the eve of the adoption of the first budget resolution, lawmakers focused on ways to reduce the huge budget deficit. During the discussion of the President's proposal for a 10% increase in military spending, the chairmen of the budget committees of both Chambers, Democrat Congressman J. McCarthy, said: Jones and Republican Senator P. Domenici said they would do everything possible to reduce the planned deficit. This thesis received bipartisan support in Congress. The prevailing mood on the Capitol rather accurately reflects what P. Domenchi said to D. Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget: "We should support the defense program, but I am not convinced that we should do it on the scale that the president suggests." 51 While preparing the draft budget resolution, the budget committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate approved a reduction in the growth rate of the military budget to 4 and 5%, respectively. These decisions reflect the convergence of positions of Republicans and Democrats on the issue of the president's military budget program. The Senate committee, which is controlled by the Republican Party (here 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats), took a position close to the House committee, where the Democrats, who make up the majority (20 Democrats and 10 Republicans), presented a united front 52 .

The budget resolution passed by Congress is very revealing. Both Chambers voted to halve the administration's planned 10% increase in military appropriations, an increase of $ 12 billion. domestic programs and taxes in the next three years by $ 73 billion 53 . The resolution was supported by 229 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 19 Republicans and 32 Democrats in the Senate. Moreover, the majority of the Republican leadership in the Senate approved this budget option despite pressure from the US president . Passing the budget-

49 US News and World Report, 27.XII.1982, 3.I.1983, p. 33.

50 The Wall Street Journal, 21.I; 22.II; 2.III.1983.

51 CQWR, 5.II.1983, p. 244; 19.II.1983, p 383; The Wall Street Journal, 2.II.1983.

52 The Wall Street Journal, 21.III; 7.IV.1983; CQWR, 15.I.1983, pp. 139, 143.

53 International Herald Tribune, 10.VI.1983.

54 The New York Times, 24.VI.1983.

page 77

What showed in Congress was not so much a change in the attitude of lawmakers to the administration's military budget policy, but a more realistic assessment that other government programs cannot be significantly reduced without slowing down the growth rate of military spending. The prevailing line, however, remained that of encouraging military preparations in every possible way. It is symptomatic that in Congress the question is not only how much to reduce military spending, but also how much to reduce Reagan's proposed increase in the military budget. The planned military construction is in full swing.

According to the military Appropriations Bill for the 1984 fiscal year, approved by Congress, military expenditures will amount to $ 249.8 billion. 55 Almost all of the President's most important requests for an arms buildup were met. Congress has allocated funds for the production of 21 MX rockets. Now the Pentagon can directly start implementing the program for building a new generation of ICBMs, which for a long time served as the object of disputes between supporters and opponents of the arms race. Amendments made by a number of congressmen to remove these appropriations from the budget were rejected by 56 . The crucial debate on this issue was preceded by an intense behind-the-scenes struggle that the White House launched to get approval for its militaristic programs. The President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense personally processed congressmen, arguing that the production of MX missiles was vital to making progress in negotiations with the Soviet Union .57 In the next stage of discussion of the program, they used the incident with the South Korean plane to push plans for military construction through Congress in a wave of anti-Soviet hysteria. On this basis, bipartisan support for the program was provided. According to the senators themselves, "the creation of MX missiles will mean a new round of the strategic arms race." 58
Both houses of Congress approved appropriations for the development of a fundamentally new Midgetman mobile ballistic missile, which the Pentagon plans to produce by the end of the 80s .59 Funds were allocated for the production of 10 B-1 strategic bombers. Commenting on the decision on this program, the Washington Post newspaper noted that the outcome of the vote on plans to create the B-1 bomber, whose components are manufactured in all states of the country, from the very beginning did not cause any doubts .60 Both Chambers supported the administration's request for funding for the construction of an Ohio-class nuclear submarine and 52 Trident missiles. Funds have also been allocated for testing anti-satellite weapons, which means moving a full-scale arms race into space. The new military appropriations bill provides for the release of significant funds for the production of chemical weapons .61
Congress allocated funds for the production of the Pershing 2 rocket, which was denied in 1982 due to unsuccessful tests. By the way, the issue of this missile is one of the main controversial issues at the Soviet - American talks in Geneva on intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. Lawmakers approved the allotment in 1984

55 Ibid., 18.XI.1983.

56 CQWR, 24.VIII.1983, p. 1807; 10.IX.1983, p. 1887.

57 The New York Times, 20.VII.1983.

58 The Washington Post, 26.VII.1983.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., 14.VII.1983.

61 CQWR, 17.IX.1983, p. 1920.

page 78

fin. g. $ 50 million for the production of neutron artillery shells for 155-mm howitzers. According to the Washington Post, according to existing plans, it is planned to produce a total of up to 1 thousand such artillery projectiles .62 Reflecting the desire of the ruling circles of the United States to expand the American military presence abroad, Congress allocated, only slightly reducing, funds for the construction of a wide network of military bases and facilities in various parts of the world - over 1 thousand. This program also includes the construction of military facilities related to the deployment of missiles in Europe .63
Thus, in general, the legislative branch continues to support the president in the main and main-enhanced construction of the most advanced types of weapons. Congress is not impeding the changes that the Reagan administration made in US domestic and foreign policy. The most acute socio-economic problems, in fact, remain unresolved. Lawmakers either limit themselves to cosmetic half-measures or simply dismiss many of these issues, including the fight against hunger, poverty and unemployment. At the same time, the "sharp intensification of the policy of the most aggressive forces of American imperialism-the policy of outright militarism" 64 noted in the speech of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU K. U. Chernenko to the voters received real reinforcement in the form of new and even more sophisticated types of weapons. During the three years of his presidency, Reagan and Congress laid a solid foundation for re-equipping all branches of the US armed forces with new systems. The decisions of the President and Congress marked the beginning of an arms race in new directions. The expansion of the multi-year funding system for military programs provides the basis for stable growth of American military production. The US press noted that "the military industry has increased its profits at an unprecedented rate in peacetime." 65 All this points to the desire of the US ruling circles to break the existing military-strategic parity at any cost, to break out ahead in the military-technological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

62 The Washington Post, 1.VIII.1983.

63 CQWR, 24.VIII.1983, p. 1814.

64 Pravda, 3. III. 1984.

65 International Herald Tribune, 2.VI.1983.

page 79

Permanent link to this publication: