[克魯曼專欄]破產的孩子 (原文載於10/02/26)

O.K., the beast is starving. Now what? That’s the question confronting Republicans. But they’re refusing to
answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do.


好吧~ 這畜牲在挨餓呢。所以咧？這正是共和黨目前所面臨的問題，不過他們拒絕回答，連參與這問題的認真討論都不願意。


For readers who don’t know what I’m talking about: ever since Reagan, the G.O.P. has been run by people
who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives
want to get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”


給滿臉疑惑之讀者的親切小叮嚀：從雷根時代至今，共和黨都是由主張政府縮減的人來領導。就如積極份子諾基斯特的名言，保守人士要把政府縮小到「可以淹死在浴缸裡。」。


But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big
government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?


不過在這議題上總是有許多政治麻煩。選民可能會反對大政府，然而對於幾乎佔據大半聯邦支出的計畫，像是老年醫療保健、醫療補助、社會保險等制度都相當受歡迎。那麼要如何說服大眾，把支出大砍特砍呢？


The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed “starving the beast” during
the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan
Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait
and switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax
cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then
be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.


保守陣營的答案發展自1970年代晚期，由許多保守知識界的人如葛林斯潘、克里斯托等人所提議，在雷根時代被稱為「餓死這畜牲」。這些愛民如子的共和黨政客不提倡沒市場的支出銷減，而是用了掛羊頭賣狗肉的手法，改採人見人愛的減稅方案，存心要惡化財政狀況。等預算赤字無法支撐時，屆時銷減支出便箭在弦上。


And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year’s budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession,
which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage.
But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of Bush-era
tax cuts (and Bush-era unfunded wars). And the combination of an aging population and rising medical
costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020.


接著，赤字支出真的發生了。的確，今年超過一半以上的預算赤字都是去年金融海嘯的結果，不僅削減了稅收，還要暫時提高支出來控制傷害。不過就算危機結束，拜布希時期的減稅(還有他那至今沒有著落的戰爭)所賜，預算會繼續紅到發紫。若不採取行動，再加上人口老化和醫療支出攀升，債務問題會在2020年後引爆──一切都是孔明的陷阱。


So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the
beast they want to cut. And President Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a
bipartisan deficit commission.


所以一如計畫，畜牲在挨餓。如今時機已然成熟，保守陣營要開始解釋該砍掉這畜牲的哪一部分。事實上藉由召開跨黨派的赤字委員會，可愛的歐巴馬總統還邀請他們一起來砍呢。


Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan
horse — in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of
gutting Social Security. But they needn’t have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against
legislation that would have created a commission with some actual power, and it is unlikely that anything
meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order.


許多進步人士對這提案超級憂慮，害怕此舉宛如木馬屠城記翻版，尤其是擔心委員會最終讓共和黨長久以來的目標生效，把社會保險制度大卸八塊。不過他們實在是多慮了，因為參院共和黨團以壓倒性的票數，反對立法創建任何具有實權的委員會。至於歐巴馬先生由總統行政命令創立的委員會，營養不良的模樣很難相信可以產生實質意義的結果。


Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut
up. Since they’re adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain
what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this
moment, they’re still not willing to do that.


怎麼共和黨會心不甘情不願的坐下來談呢？因為他們被迫不行動就閉嘴。他們既然堅決反對增稅來降低赤字，就要說明要砍掉哪些支出，他們已經佈這個局佈了三十年之久。但和高進不同的是，等時機真的到了，他們卻還是不想去做。


In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the
1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they
have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign
against health care reform (death panels!). And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim
Pawlenty of Minnesota: “I don’t think anybody’s gonna go back now and say, Let’s abolish, or reduce,
Medicare and Medicaid.”


其實保守陣營早就背離自己過去提倡的削減支出了，以1990年為例，共和黨當時在國會試圖強行大砍老年醫療保健預算。但他們現在卻反對任何讓醫療預算更審慎運用的努力，因為這是反對健保改革之戰的核心(奪命小組！)。有望成為未來總統候選人的明尼蘇達州州長柏蘭提表示：「我不覺得有人會想回到過去然後說『來廢除或減少醫療保健和醫療補助吧。』」。


What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to
upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The
Wall Street Journal’s editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because “middle- and upper-
middle-class (i.e., G.O.P.) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll
taxes.” (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the G.O.P. is the party of the affluent?)


社會保險制度呢？五年前布希政府提案，為了測試退休津貼新制，限制未來高階與中產階級勞工的薪資。但華爾街日報在12月的社論版譴責這項測試，「中產與中上階層(換句話說，共和黨)選民繳一輩子的工資稅，最終所能拿到的錢卻比先前保證的還少。」(嗯？保守陣營是什麼時候開始公開宣稱共和黨代表冨人了？)


At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to
raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in
serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there
isn’t any plan, except to regain power.


共和黨堅持要消除赤字，可是又不願意加稅，也不願意支持減低政府主要支出的計畫，連跨黨派的認真研討的不願意參加，因為這可能會迫使他們解釋心中計畫──就是除了拿回執政權外，根本沒有什麼計畫。


But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on
starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into
dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we
are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.

不過共和黨的行動仍可解釋。「我們這樣做會不會讓牠太餓了點啊？」「不會啊。」「那就再讓牠餓一點！」剝奪政府的稅收，並不足以讓政客廢除福利國家。於是現在的策略是反對任何負責的行動，直到我們深陷財政風暴為止。本人在此搶先為您揭漏。