经济学人下载:奥巴马,可能败选的总统

Yes you can—if we can afford it
是的你可以——假如我们负担得起的话

Talent is less of a problem than policies. A serious Republican candidate must come up with answers to the two big problems facing America’s economy: how to get more people back to work, and how to fix the deficit. The first requires a swathe of bold structural reforms to boost jobs and growth, the second a credible plan to balance the books in the medium term that does not wreck the economy in the short term. When it comes to encouraging jobs, the Republican failure is largely one of inventiveness. They focus merely on tax cuts and slashing red tape. But what about a big new push to free up trade? Or an overhaul of the antiquated unemployment-insurance scheme and worker-training programmes that gets business more involved? Or serious immigration reform?

相比政纲，人才不是个什么大问题。一个认真的共和党候选人必须拿出解决美国经济面临的两大问题的答案：怎样使更多人重回工作岗位，以及怎样解决财政赤字。第一个问题要求一系列大胆的改革以促进就业和经济增长，第二个问题需要一个可靠的计划使中期账目收支平衡又不会在短期内破坏经济增长。提到促进就业，共和党人的失败大部分可归咎于缺乏创造性。他们只着眼于在减税和简化官方繁文缛节。但是为什么不采取更大胆的手段以开放贸易？或者对陈旧的失业保险计划以及劳工培训计划来个一个彻底的整修让商业界更积极参与其中？或者认真的移民改革？

The Republican failure on the deficit is more serious. Mr Obama is deeply vulnerable here, not least because he is still trying to kid Americans that their fiscal future can be shored up merely by taxing the rich more. But the Republican solution of tax cuts and even deeper spending cuts (typified by Mr Pawlenty’s proposals this week) is arguably worse. Most of the burden of repairing America’s public finances should certainly fall on spending. But the deficit is simply too large to close through spending cuts alone. The overall tax take—at its lowest, as a share of GDP, in decades—must eventually rise.

共和党人在财政赤字上的失败更严重。这两个话题是奥巴马先生的软肋，不单单是因为他仍然尝试愚弄美国人尝试让他们相信他们的财政状况可以仅仅通过向富人征税而得到改善。但是共和党人提出的减税以及进一步的削减开支（典型例子是普兰提本周的议案）的提议却更不靠谱。的确，修复美国公共财政的担子大部分落于支出控制。但是这赤字太大不能仅仅靠开支削减来缩小。现在总的税率占GDP的比例是近几十年来最低的，而这最终都会上升。

An honest Republican candidate would acknowledge this and lay out the right way to do so—for instance, by eliminating distorting loopholes and thus allowing revenues to rise. He (or she) would also come up with a more systematic plan on the spending side. No Republican seems to understand the difference between good spending and bad. Investment in roads and education, for instance, ought not to be lumped in with costly and unreformed entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Defence should not be sacrosanct. That Mr Obama has no strategy either is not an excuse.

一位诚实的共和党候选人将会承认这一事实并提出正确的方案——比如，通过去除各种扭曲的财政漏洞而使收入增加。他（或她）可以就财政开支提出一个更系统性的方案。而似乎没有一个共和党人能明白有益开支和有害开支的区别。比如说，在道路和教育上的投资不应该被归并为昂贵的待改革的津贴，后者如社保和医疗。辩解不必是神圣不可侵犯的。奥巴马先生没有提出战略也不是借口。

In most elections promising toughness is not a successful tactic; but this time Americans know that their country has huge problems and that their nation’s finances are the biggest problem of all. In Britain the Conservatives made the incumbent Gordon Brown seem ridiculous by spelling out the austerity that he at first barely dared mention; now another tough-talking centre-right party has won in Portugal (see article). If ever there was a time for pragmatic conservative realism, it is now. Mr Obama might also bear that in mind.

在大多数的竞选中，承诺强硬的手段并不是一个好的战术；但这一次，美国人知道他们国家的问题相当严重，而国家财政是其中最大的问题。在英国，保守党详细说明紧了缩财政的计划，而当时的在任总统布郎在一开始几乎没有提到过相似的计划因而颜面尽失；现在另一个强硬的中右派赢得了葡萄牙的大选（参见此文）。假如存在一个推崇务实的保守的现实主义的时代，现在就是了。奥巴马先生也应该记住这一点。