[2008.07.26] 美国经济难题解决之道：关键是经济，笨！

The economy: the solutions

美国经济困境：解决之道

It’s the economy again, stupid
关键是经济，笨！

Jul 24th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

John McCain and Barack Obama are offering profoundly different prescriptions, though economic and political realities will limit their ambitions
麦凯恩和奥巴马开出了截然不同但都令人眼花缭乱的经济药方，而经济和政治的现状使他们无法大展拳脚

SIXTEEN years ago an American presidential election was fought against the backdrop of a weak economy and a grumpy electorate. In 1992, in the shadow of a recession and with Americans worried about their living standards, their health care and their country’s ability to compete, a charismatic young Democrat won by focusing on middle-class America’s economic angst and excoriating the “failed” policies of the Reagan and Bush eras. Candidate Bill Clinton promised an activist government that would tilt the scales towards workers, pledging wholesale health-care reform, big increases in public investment, tax cuts for middle-class families and higher taxes on the rich.

十六年前的美国大选面对的是疲软的经济和气急败坏的选民。1992年，随着经济的衰退，美国人担忧其生活水平的保持，健康保障的情况及国家的竞争力。最终，通过对中产阶级的经济担忧的充分重视及对里根及老布什时代政策的严厉斥责，一位民主党的青年才俊当选了，他就是克林顿。他向选民承诺了一个将大有作为的政府，保证其将致力于工薪阶层的福祉，大力改革医保体制，加大公共投资的力度，为中产家庭减税并向富人加征税收。

But the reality of Clintonomics was more centrist and less ambitious than promised. Taxes did go up for the rich, but large public investment plans were quickly ditched in favour of deficit reduction. His (or rather, his wife’s) health-care scheme famously collapsed. In 1996, facing a Republican Congress, he declared that “The era of big government is over.” And by the middle of the decade, Americans’ malaise was morphing into triumphalism as productivity accelerated, unemployment fell and wages rose across the board.

但克林顿经济的现实版却没有承诺的那么大刀阔斧，而更趋于走中间路线。富人的税是涨了，但为了削减赤字，大规模公共投资的计划被搁浅了。而他的（或者说他夫人的）健康保险模式的失败也为人们所熟知。1996年，面对共和党把持的国会，他宣布了”大政府时代的终结”。到了90年代中期，美国的产量开始提高，失业率下降，工资全面上升。人们的不安逐渐变为了走出困境的必胜信念。

One of the biggest questions facing America today is whether this dynamic is about to be repeated, whether the status quo will continue, or whether the country is on the brink of a more radical shift to the left. Once again, the economy is at the forefront of a presidential election and Americans are grumpy-grumpier, in fact, than they were in 1992. What’s more, compared with 1992, voters face a starker economic choice. Though Barack Obama and John McCain sound similar on some big issues, mostly green ones, their economic philosophies are quite different.

而美国今天面临的最大问题是能否再次激起人们的热情，现状是否为继续，或者他们是否需要一次更激进的改革。再一次，经济问题成了总统候选人斗争的最前线。而这次，美国的选民的脾气比92年还要差。而与92年相比，他们在经济问题上面临着更加赤裸裸的选择。尽管两位候选人在一些大问题上–主要是关于环保的 –观点相近，但其经济哲学却是截然相反的。

Mr Obama promotes a more ambitious version of candidate Clinton’s 1992 vision of activist government, with a dose of belligerent trade talk added on. He wants to spend money on public investment (primarily on infrastructure and alternative fuels); he has an ambitious and expensive plan for near-universal health-care coverage; he promises tax cuts for working Americans and sharply higher taxes for rich folk. During the primaries he threatened to pull out of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unless it was renegotiated.

奥巴马宣扬的是克林顿92年的有为政府的加强版，还加上了进行更主动的贸易谈判这一条。他希望把钱花在公共投资上（主要在基础设施和替代能源上）；他野心勃勃地制定了一个昂贵的准全民健康保障计划；他承诺为工薪阶层减税并向富人们征重税。在初选中他还威胁如果不重新谈判就推出北美自由贸易协定。

Mr McCain, in contrast, is a staunch free-trader, arguing that America should be pushing for more trade deals, not shrinking from existing ones. On domestic policy, he sounds more radical than George Bush senior ever was-and than he himself has been in the past. Gone are Mr McCain’s long-standing worries about the wisdom of cutting taxes at the top. Instead he now offers the traditional Republican recipe for growth: tax cuts, freer markets and minimal government. Though he opposed George Bush’s tax cuts, he now wants to make them permanent and add more. Rather than extend government’s reach in health care, he wants to free up insurance markets and cut costs.

与之形成鲜明对比的是麦凯恩，坚定的自由贸易者，他认为美国应该扩大贸易规模，而不是在现有基础上还要减少。而在国内政策上，他表现地比老布什还要激进 –也比以前的他更激进。麦凯恩长期以来关于提倡对高收入人群减税的理论的担忧不见了，取而代之的是共和党传统的经济药房：减税，更自由的市场，政府的最低干预。尽管他反对过布什的减税政策，但现在，他不仅要保持还要变本加厉地减。他没有打算政府进一步介入健康保障，而是准备进一步开放保险市场并降低其成本。

These differences have allowed the two campaigns to paint America’s economic choice in dramatic terms. Republicans attack Mr Obama as a rank protectionist and big-spending liberal, who promises the biggest tax hike since the second world war. Democrats deride Mr McCain as an even more reckless tax-cutter than the current president, a man who will bust the budget and tilt the playing field even further against ordinary workers. But things are not exactly as they seem.

这些显著的差异给了选战双方在描述美国经济的未来时可以尽情的添油加醋。共和党人抨击奥巴马是下流的保护主义者和败家的自由主义者，而他承诺将进行二战以来最大的一次增税。民主党人则讽刺麦凯恩是比布什还要莽撞的减税者，并称他将使政府债台高筑，并使市场秩序进一步不利于工薪阶层。但两边说得都有点过了

For anyone outside the country, the stakes appear highest on trade policy, particularly since the Democratic Party has become noticeably more sceptical since the Clinton era. Look carefully, however, and 2008 is unlikely to mark as big a watershed as many fear. Mr McCain is a commendably committed free-trader. He also wants to overhaul America’s safety net for those who lose out, promising to revamp unemployment insurance, streamline retraining programmes and provide more wage insurance for older workers. But the odds of more trade deals are slim. Regardless of the outcome of America’s election, the Doha trade round is on life support. And at home a President McCain would almost certainly face a Democratic Congress that is chronically suspicious of trade deals, even those with sops for the losers.

从任何外国人的角度看，现在的贸易壁垒都是最高的，特别是在民主党自克林顿时代变得疑心越来越重的情况下。但进一步分析，2008年并不会成为许多人担心的分水岭。麦凯恩力挺自由贸易是讨人爱。他也表示会大力改进保障弱势群体的（社会）安全网，改进失业保险和流水线再就业培训计划并向年长的工人提供更高的工资保险，但增大贸易量希望渺茫。不管大选结果是什么，多哈贸易谈判都危在旦夕。而从国内来说，如果麦凯恩当选，其无疑将面对一个对贸易协定日渐多疑的民主党国会。

By the same token, Mr Obama is less likely to pander to his party’s protectionist wing than his primary rhetoric suggests. Within days of winning the nomination his tone changed. He told Fortune that his attacks on NAFTA were “overheated and amplified”; he wanted to “open up a dialogue” with Mexico and Canada, but disavowed the idea of unilateral withdrawal. An Obama presidency would doubtless bring more sabre-rattling than Mr McCain on everything from China’s currency to the need for environmental and labour standards, and Mr Obama may face troubles of his own from Congress. But a look at his advisers, and his recent speeches, suggests a moderate approach.

出于同样的原因，奥巴马也并不会像其初选时吹的那么倾向于党内的保护主义一翼。赢得总统候选人提名后仅几天，他的论调就变了。他告诉《财富》杂志，他对北美自由贸易协定的攻击有些”夸张和过头”了；他表示希望能与墨西哥和加拿大展开对话，并否认单边退出的说法。如果奥巴马当政，他在任何问题上都必定会比麦凯恩更加张牙舞爪，不管是中国的汇率还是环境标准或是劳工标准。而奥巴马在本党控制的议会也可能会碰钉子。但从其智囊的建议和其最近演讲来看，他都开始更倾向于走温和路线。

Of taxing and spending
关于税收和支出

What about the faultlines on domestic policy? There, too, the differences shrink a bit on closer inspection. Mr Obama would doubtless tilt the regulatory environment to the left (pushing up the minimum wage again and signing laws to make union organising easier, for instance). Both candidates are likely to favour more government involvement in areas from housing to financial regulation. Both have talked, for instance, of regulating oil-futures trading. But neither candidate proposes a huge shift in the reach of government. Calculations by the Tax Policy Centre suggest that Mr McCain’s tax plans would reduce the federal tax take to 17.6% of GDP by 2018, while Mr Obama’s would yield 18.5%. America’s post-war average is around 18%.

那么那些国内政策上的分歧呢？同样的，如果仔细分析就会发现，其实差别并不是那么大。奥巴马无疑会积极改进法治环境（比如，再次提高最低工资并立法帮助管理工会）。两位候选人都更倾向于扩大政府干预，从房地产市场到金融监管。比如，双方都曾提到要规范石油期货交易，但两位侯选人都并没有给出在政府的职权内的具体措施。据税务政策中心的计算，麦凯恩的减税计划会在2018年前使联邦税收减少到GDP的17.6%，而奥巴马的政策会使其增加到18.7%，而美国战后这一数据的平均值为约18%。

Nor is either candidate proposing serious tax reform. The expiry of Mr Bush’s tax cuts in 2011 offers the opportunity to rewrite America’s labyrinthine tax code in a way that could be both progressive (as Mr Obama wants) and pro-growth (Mr McCain’s concern). But while Mr Obama has plans to simplify tax filing and Mr McCain talks vaguely of an optional alternative tax with lower rates and a broader base, neither really focuses on reform.

而两边也都没有拿出具体的税收改革计划。布什的减税政策将于2011年期满，而届时将有机会来重写美国迷宫般复杂的税法，当然这有可能取得一定成果（如果如奥巴马所愿）也可能会抑制经济增长（如麦凯恩担心的）。但一边奥巴马在忙着简化报税程序，另一边麦凯恩含糊地宣传着其低税率广税基的新税制，明显的，两边都不是真正想改革。

Both candidates take the framework of the Bush tax cuts as given. And both measure the effects of their tax and spending plans not against current law (which has Mr Bush’s tax cuts expiring by the start of 2011) but against a world in which the cuts are all extended. Compared with that “baseline”, Mr Obama’s scheme raises some $800 billion over the next decade-all of which he then spends on health care, infrastructure and other programmes.

双方都沿袭了布什的减税政策的基本框架。并且两边都在掂量其税收和支出政策的效果，并使其不违背当前的法规（包括2011年失效的布什减税政策），并要使其能面对一个减税风潮正劲的世界。与这些”底线”相比，奥巴马的计划在未来十年将多征8000亿美元的税收–而他将全部用于健康保障，基础设施建设和其他的项目。

Mr McCain’s tax cuts, in contrast, would reduce tax revenue by about $600 billion over ten years. He “saves” that money by promising to get tough on spending. Indeed, he says he can balance the budget by 2013. Although Mr McCain has some credibility as a small-government conservative-he was one of the few who voted against Mr Bush’s reckless expansion of Medicare and, unlike Mr Obama, has consistently opposed farm subsidies-he offers few details on how this might be achieved. His speeches are peppered with pledges to get rid of earmarks (spending tagged for politicians’ pet projects). But since all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year, that will not yield much. For his numbers to add up, not only would discretionary spending need to be slashed from its current level of 7.6% of GDP, but spending on entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, would need to be cut too. If Mr McCain wants to do that, he has kept quiet about it.

与之形成鲜明对比的是麦凯恩的减税政策，其将使未来十年税收减少6000亿美元。他决定用严格控制支出来节约这部分税收。他更明确表示能在2013年使收支相抵。尽管他作为一个支持小政府的保守主义者还是值得信赖的–他是少数的几个反对布什布什不计后果的医疗保障的人，并且，与奥巴马相反，他反对农场补贴–但他并没拿出具体的措施来实现这一目标。他在其演讲中反复提到要杜绝特别拨款（政客们中饱私囊的项目）。但每年的特别拨款高达200亿美元，要杜绝绝非易事。除了这些，他还会削减现规模为GDP的7.6%的政府可自由支配开支，但这样的话，如社保和医保等补助经费也会相应减少。如果这是麦凯恩希望的结果，在这方面他嘴巴倒是闭得够紧的。

Since both candidates score badly on reform and fiscal prudence, the tax debate is really about distribution within the current tax structure: and here there genuinely are big differences. Mr McCain’s recipe is simple. He wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts (except eliminating the estate tax) and add a few more. His plan doubles the size of the tax exemption for dependants. In his speeches he promises to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (a secondary system designed to prevent wealthy people avoiding tax, which now hits millions of taxpayers), though the campaign’s fine print suggests patching rather than eliminating it. And, most of all, he wants to cut corporate taxes. The top rate of corporate income tax is to fall from 35% (one of the highest in the world) to 25%. Firms would be allowed to deduct immediately the cost of all spending on long-term equipment rather than depreciate it over time.

两边在经济改革与节省财政开支上成绩都不太理想，而在税收政策上两边的差别只是在现有的税收结构上怎样分配税负。而两边在这个问题上的看法相左。麦凯恩的药方很简单。他将延续布什的减税政策的基础上再添上几个。他的计划将使被救济者获得双倍的税收豁免。他在演讲中承诺将废除替换最小课税（一个次级的税收体系，用来避免富人逃税，而现在却套住了上百万的纳税人（因为没有随通胀等因素调高底线，译注）），尽管其竞选的纲领中只是说要改善而不是废除。而，最重要的是，他要减少公司税，将最高的公司所得税从35%（全世界最高的税率之一）调低至25%。并且企业将被允许直接从成本中扣除长期设备的支出，而不是逐年折旧。

Mr Obama also wants to keep many of the Bush tax cuts that primarily benefit the 98% of households that make less than $250,000 a year. He then adds an array of new tax cuts for those at the bottom and middle. Some make sense, like a big expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which tops up the earnings of poor workers. Others, such as getting rid of income taxes for old people making less than $50,000 a year, don’t.

奥巴马也想维持大部分布什的减税政策，因为其使得98%年收入在25万美元的家庭都能受益。他还制定了一系列新的针对中低收入人群的减税计划。其中一些比较现实，比如大幅度增加所得税信用（一种返还性税收减免，译注），这将直接提高贫困工人们的收入。而其他一些像免除年收入5万以下的老人的所得税的政策就不那么可行了。

To pay for this largesse, and for his long spending wish-list, Mr Obama promises to raise huge sums from closing tax loopholes. He also pushes up tax rates at the top. America’s top rate of income tax will rise from 35% to 39.5%, its level at the end of the Clinton era. The capital-gains tax rate will rise from 15% to between 20% and 28%. “Carried interest”, the returns made by private equity and hedge-fund partners, will be taxed as ordinary income, rather than capital gains.

奥巴马的慷慨是要买单的，他承诺将通过打击偷税漏税获得的巨额资金来兑现其长长的许愿单。他同时提高了对富人的税率。他将美国人的所得税上限从35%提高到39.5%，克林顿执政后期的水平。而资本利得税率将从15%提高到20%至28%。”附带权益”，即从私募股权投资和对冲基金中获得的收入将按照普通收入来征税，而不是以前的资本利得。

Separately, Mr Obama has also suggested that he would help fix Social Security’s finances by raising the payroll tax on households earning more than $250,000 a year. (Today, the 6.2% payroll tax contributions made by both workers and employers stop at earnings of $102,000.) How much he would raise it is not clear. Adding on the full 12.4% would effectively take top marginal tax rates above 50%. Mr Obama offers no details, but his advisers hint that any rate rise would be much lower.

另外，奥巴马还表示他会通过增收年收入在25万美元以上家庭的工薪税来改善社会保险的财务状况。（现今的6.2%的工薪税是由收入在10.2万以上的工人和老板们承担的）到底加多少他没明说。但加上12.4%后最高的边际税率将超过50%。奥巴马没有提出具体的计划，但他的顾问表示真正增税了将大大低于这个水平。

Exactly how these plans shift the tax burden is not obvious-who gains from a corporate tax cut, for instance, depends on whether lower corporate taxes merely boost shareholders’ returns or also bring higher wages. But the big picture is clear. Both candidates cut taxes for all but those at the very top. For the richest fifth of the population, Mr McCain brings a lower tax bill than Mr Bush did while Mr Obama plans a big rise from the Bush years.

这些计划怎样转移税收负担并不是很明显–比如说，公司税的减免将提高谁的收益得看低税率是仅仅增加股东回报还是同时也拉高了工资水平。但大的框架还是清楚的。两边都推行全面减税，当然除了那些最有钱的。对于最富有的1/5，麦凯恩给他们开的账单比布什的少，而奥巴马则准备多收一些了。

But whether that rise marks a watershed is less obvious. Though the level ends up the same, the rise in the top marginal income tax rate that Mr Obama is proposing is smaller than that signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 (which took the top rate of tax from 31% to 39.6%). And analyses of that hike seem to suggest that while it had a big short-term effect on revenues, there is little evidence of large, permanent damage to incentives.

但这一增税政策会否成为选战的分水岭却不一定。尽管最终的税收水平相同，但奥巴马推行的政策在最高边际所得税率上低于克林顿在93年推行的水平（克林顿将税率从31%提高到了39.6%）。而通过对那次增税的分析表明，尽管在短期对收入有较大的影响，但长期来看，并无迹象表明其抑制了经济的发展。

The uncertainty with Mr Obama lies with the payroll tax. He has all but ruled out raising the retirement age or cutting pensions to plug the gap in America’s public pension system. The gap cannot be filled simply by raising taxes on the top 2%. But if raising taxes on rich people is Mr Obama’s only route to dealing with America’s pensions problem, he will be far from an economic centrist.

奥巴马最大的不确定性将来自其工薪税。他差点就决定提高退休年龄或者减少养老金来填补养老金系统的巨大资金缺口。而这一缺口单单靠对最富的1/5增税2%是填不了的。但如果对富人增税是奥巴马对付养老金问题的唯一路径，他将不得不放弃经济政策上的中间立场。

A healthy debate
论战医保

The main area where an Obama presidency could mark a break from the past is health. His plan is a version of the Democratic consensus: to provide near-universal coverage through subsidies, expanded government health schemes, a regulated insurance exchange, tough rules on whom insurance companies must insure, and taxes on employers who do not provide health coverage. Mr Obama has plenty of ideas for cost control, but his main aim is expanding coverage-at a cost of some $50 billion-65 billion a year, though some estimates run much higher. Mr McCain’s focus, in contrast, is cost control and competition. He wants to loosen the rules on insurance companies and end the preference for employer-provided health care. Everyone would get a $2,500 refundable tax credit to buy health insurance.

如果奥巴马当选，最大的突破将在医疗领域。他的计划是民主党历来的共识：通过补助达到准全名医疗保障，政府扩大在医疗领域的干预规模，规范保险交易，对保险公司必须保的险制定强制法规，并对未提供健康保险的雇主征税。奥巴马控制支出的方法不少，但其主要的目的是扩大医疗保障的覆盖面–代价是每年400至 600亿的支出，可能还更高。而麦凯恩关注的则是减少支出及鼓励竞争。他要放松对包险公司的管制并取消对提供医疗保障的雇主的优惠。他将给每个购买医疗保险的人提供2500元的减税额。

The staunch opposition of an (almost certainly) Democratic Congress makes it hard to see Mr McCain’s vision enacted. His plans are a somewhat improved version of those that Mr Bush has proposed, in vain, for several years. For Mr Obama, the headwinds are less likely to be political than economic. Getting a comprehensive and ambitious health-care plan through Congress will be an enormous undertaking. But a prolonged bout of economic weakness will sap the budget and divert focus from such far-reaching reform.

而国会被民主党控制的现实使得麦凯恩的图景实现的希望渺茫。他的计划某种程度上就是布什这几年推行的并被证明是白费劲的政策的改良版。而对奥巴马来说，最大的障碍将来自经济上而不是政治上。如此野心勃勃且价格不菲的医保计划要通过国会的通过将得费不少力气。并且经济的疲软在长期的后果将侵蚀预算，而人们的注意力也将从这个遥远的改革计划中挪开。

All told, the contours of the business cycle may be the main influence on whether 2008 proves a big turning-point for economic policy. Mr Obama’s tax increases will seem more risky if demand is weak. Whoever is president will be more focused on short-term palliatives than big policy change. Paradoxically, voters’ grumpiness may be a spur for radical change. But, just as in 1992, economic weakness may drive both sides to the centre.

综上所述，08年的大选会不会成为美国经济政策的转折点将取决于商业周期的大环境。如果需求上不去，奥巴马的增税政策风险将很大。但不管谁当选，都会着力先解决短期的阵痛而不是宏大的改革目标。讽刺的是，选民的气急败坏将可能使双方都更加激进。但，正如92年的情况，经济的疲软也可能使两边站到
一起。

译者：dujingqiang     http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13049&extra=page%3D1