Read the text below which is entitled "Congress Caps another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions 27 to 30.

Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)

    On December 30, nearly three months into the fiscal year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006 appropriation process to a close. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals $134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase. But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specific areas: defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall nearly 2 percent after adjusting for inflation. Leaving out large federal investments in development, congressional appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over 2005. But NASA applied research on human space flight technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,  leaving most agency research portfolios with modest increases falling short of inflation, or cuts. Many flagship federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in 2006.

Read the text below which is entitled "Congress Caps another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions 27 to 30.

Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)

    On December 30, nearly three months into the fiscal year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006 appropriation process to a close. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals $134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase. But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specific areas: defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall nearly 2 percent after adjusting for inflation. Leaving out large federal investments in development, congressional appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over 2005. But NASA applied research on human space flight technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,  leaving most agency research portfolios with modest increases falling short of inflation, or cuts. Many flagship federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in 2006.

Read the text below which is entitled "Congress Caps another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions 27 to 30.

Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)

    On December 30, nearly three months into the fiscal year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006 appropriation process to a close. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals $134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase. But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specific areas: defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall nearly 2 percent after adjusting for inflation. Leaving out large federal investments in development, congressional appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over 2005. But NASA applied research on human space flight technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,  leaving most agency research portfolios with modest increases falling short of inflation, or cuts. Many flagship federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in 2006.

Read the text below which is entitled "A modest proposal" in order to answer questions 24 to 26.

A modest proposal
Source: www.economist.com
14 Dec 2005 (Adapted)

    What on earth is the European Union budget for? It is too small (taking up just over 1% of EU-wide GDP) to have any serious effect. To judge by the wrangling before this week's EU summit in Brussels, it has become mostly an opportunity for countries to air their pet grievances and to demand their money back. If there is a deal on the budget this week, it will be an agreement reached for its own sake, because EU leaders cannot bear to be blamed for yet another summit failure. And if there is no deal, it will similarly be a disagreement for its own sake - because France rather likes the idea of putting Britain, which holds the rotating EU presidency, in the dock for one more financial fiasco.
   Yet if there was ever a good moment to think hard about how the budget might be better designed to advance the Union's stated aims, it ought to be now. The "financial perspective" is negotiated once every six years. That ought to create enough time to step back a bit and consider some first principles. The present negotiation is also the first since French and Dutch voters rejected the EU constitution this summer, creating another good opportunity to ask whether the club is still spending its money on the right things. What would a budget look like if it took the EU's goals at all seriously?

Read the text below which is entitled "A modest proposal" in order to answer questions 24 to 26.

A modest proposal
Source: www.economist.com
14 Dec 2005 (Adapted)

    What on earth is the European Union budget for? It is too small (taking up just over 1% of EU-wide GDP) to have any serious effect. To judge by the wrangling before this week's EU summit in Brussels, it has become mostly an opportunity for countries to air their pet grievances and to demand their money back. If there is a deal on the budget this week, it will be an agreement reached for its own sake, because EU leaders cannot bear to be blamed for yet another summit failure. And if there is no deal, it will similarly be a disagreement for its own sake - because France rather likes the idea of putting Britain, which holds the rotating EU presidency, in the dock for one more financial fiasco.
   Yet if there was ever a good moment to think hard about how the budget might be better designed to advance the Union's stated aims, it ought to be now. The "financial perspective" is negotiated once every six years. That ought to create enough time to step back a bit and consider some first principles. The present negotiation is also the first since French and Dutch voters rejected the EU constitution this summer, creating another good opportunity to ask whether the club is still spending its money on the right things. What would a budget look like if it took the EU's goals at all seriously?