The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidencyhave brought some good news and some bad news.The good news is that, albeit chaotically, he isgoverning more as an orthodox post-ReaganRepublican than most expected. The bad news isthat he is governing more as an orthodoxRepublican than most expected. This now seemstrue in all the main policy areas, both domestic andinternational. It is clearly true in economic policy.
唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)就任总统的头100天既带来了一些好消息，也带来一些坏消息。好消息是，尽管有些混乱，但他的执政方式比大多数人预想的更接近一名正统的后里根时代共和党人。而坏消息是，他的执政方式比大多数人预期的更接近一名正统共和党人。如今，在所有主要的政策领域——无论是国内还是国际，似乎都是如此。在经济政策方面，显然更是如此。
The idea of rebuilding US infrastructure has faded. The trade protectionism looks halfhearted.But deregulation is still an objective. So is tax reform, with the familiar combination ofunfunded giveaways and magical thinking on deficits. Mr Trump’s policies look ever more likeReagan’s, but from a more unfavourable starting point.
重建美国基础设施的想法已经消褪。贸易保护主义看起来意兴阑珊。但放宽监管仍是目标之一。税改也一样，伴随如下熟悉的组合：缺乏财力支撑的减税大礼包和关于赤字的神奇想法。特朗普的政策看起来越发像里根的政策，只是起点更为不利。
In announcing the tax plan, the White House did in an essential respect reinforce experiencewith this administration. It is hard to think of another government that would announceradical reforms of the tax system in a one-page document as sketchy as this one. It wouldbe laughable if it were not so damaging to the US reputation for competent policymaking. Theplan must be dead on arrival in Congress, in large part because it is not alive in the first place.
白宫在宣布减税计划时，的确在一个重要方面加深了人们对于本届政府的印象。很难想象会有另一届政府如此粗略地在一页纸的文件中宣布对税制进行彻底改革。要不是这种做法给美国强大政策制定能力的声誉造成了严重损害，我们原本可能会觉得整件事挺可笑的。该计划一到达国会必然流产，很大程度上是因其原本就是“死胎”。
The single page released by the White House last week does, however, contain very similarideas to those announced by candidate Trump. This makes it possible for us to go back tothe analysis published by the Tax Policy Center in October. While we have little reason toexpect a plan just like this to be enacted, that earlier analysis does help us understand howfar the administration’s starting point remains from common sense on fiscal policy.
然而，白宫上周发布的一页纸的税改方案，的确包含了与特朗普竞选总统时的口号非常相似的观点。这使得我们可以回头看看去年10月税收政策中心(Tax Policy Center)发布的分析。虽然我们几乎没有理由预期这样一项计划获得通过，但早先的分析确实有助于我们理解，本届政府的财政政策出发点在多大程度上背离了常识。
Start with the effects on the fiscal deficit. According to the TPC, the plan would raise the federaldeficit (even after allowing for beneficial macro-economic effects) by a little under 3 per cent ofgross domestic product for as long as it remains in place. But, according to the InternationalMonetary Fund, the US is already running a general government structural deficit of 4 per centof GDP, forecast to rise to just under 6 per cent of GDP in the early 2020s.
让我们从该计划对财政赤字的影响开始看。根据税收政策中心的分析，该计划在其实施的全部期间内，将使联邦赤字与国内生产总值(GDP)之比(即使考虑到有利的宏观经济效果)升高略低于3%。但国际货币基金组织(IMF)的数据显示，美国政府总体结构性赤字与GDP之比本已达到4%，预计到本世纪20年代初将升至略低于6%。
With the addition of the proposed tax cuts, a structural general government deficit of well over8 per cent of GDP might emerge in the 2020s. This would cause an explosive rise in debt.That could not be allowed to happen, particularly since US general government net debt is nowmore than 80 per cent of GDP, up from 45 per cent before the crisis and far lower when Reagancame to office. The structural deficit needs to be reduced, not increased. Yet this fiscal boost isnot intended to be temporary and would also occur when unemployment is at 4.5 per centof the labour force. It would be of the wrong kind, at the wrong time.
考虑到提议的减税，到本世纪20年代，政府结构性总体赤字与GDP之比可能达到略低于9%。这将导致债务的爆炸性增长。不能允许这种情况发生，尤其是如今美国政府总净债务与GDP之比已超过80%，高于金融危机前的45%，但远低于里根(Reagan)上台时的水平。结构性赤字需要削减，而非增加。然而按计划，这种财政刺激不是暂时的，即便失业率为4.5%(自然失业率)时，也将施行。这将是在错误时间的一种错误做法。
Defenders suggest, in response, that the plan might pay for itself, via increased activity. Giventhe low unemployment rate, this seems quite unlikely. Yet US Treasury secretary StevenMnuchin has even suggested that, in combination with other administration policies, tax cutscould raise US trend growth to 3 per cent, from the current trend of slightly below 2 percent.
辩护者回应称，该计划或许可以通过经济活跃度提高来自行买单。由于失业率较低，这似乎极度不可能。但美国财政部长史蒂文?姆努钦(Steven Mnuchin)甚至表示，结合华府的其他政策，减税可将美国的趋势增长率从当前的略低于2%提升至3%。
Such a rise in growth would help. But it is very unlikely, for reasons explained by JasonFurman, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. For it to happen, he argues, itwould be far from sufficient for the decline in labour force participation to reverse. Therewould also be a need for a rise in the growth of output per hour from the 1.2 per cent achievedin the last decade to 2.8 per cent. That rate of productivity growth has been extremely rarein the past, over any extended time period. It would be mad for policymakers simply toassume this will happen (See charts.)
这样的经济增长率提升会有所帮助。但这种情况出现的可能性非常低，原因如白宫经济顾问委员会(Council ofEconomic Advisers)主席贾森·弗曼(Jason Furman)所解释的。他认为，劳动力参与率的下降趋势发生逆转，远不足以让这种情况发生。还需要每小时产量增长率从过去十年实现的1.2%提高至2.8%。在历史上，我们很少见到这种生产率增长速度能持续哪怕一小段时间。决策者准是疯了，才会就这么简单地假设这种情况会发生(见图表)。
The question then is whether these huge tax cuts could be offset elsewhere. The border taxadjustment to corporation tax now seems to be a dead idea. So the only solution would behuge cuts in spending. To reduce spending by, say, 2.5 per cent of GDP would mean a cut infederal spending of about 12 per cent. But nearly 90 per cent of that spending goes ondefence, health, income security, veterans’ benefits, social security and interest. On theassumption that these items will be protected, every other item of federal spending would haveto be eliminated. The federal government would, in many areas, vanish.
那么，剩下的问题就是，这些大幅度的减税能否在其他领域得到抵偿。对公司税的边境税调节，现在看来已经没戏了。因此唯一的解决方案将是大幅削减支出。支出削减幅度达到GDP的2.5%(打个比方)，将意味着联邦支出削减约12%。但将近90%的联邦支出都用于国防、医疗、收入保障、退伍军人福利、社会保障和利益。假设这些支出项目都不动，其他所有的联邦支出项目都将不得不取消。联邦政府在很多领域的作用将消失。
The tax proposals also look astoundingly regressive. According to the TPC’s analysis, the top0.1 of the income distribution might receive an average tax cut approaching 14.2 per cent ofafter-tax income, while middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of 1.8 percent. Among the startlingly regressive changes would be repeal of the alternative minimumtax, repeal of estate taxes and huge reductions in corporate tax rates, including on so-calledpass-through businesses. To those that have it shall be given. That is the doctrine of MrTrump. It is also the old Republican trickle-down doctrine in purest form.
税改提议的累退性看起来也令人吃惊。根据税收政策中心的分析，处于收入分配最顶层的0.1%的人平均享受的减税幅度，可能接近税后收入的14.2%，而中等收入家庭平均享受1.8%的减税。除各项累退程度令人吃惊的改变之外，提议还包括废除替代性最低税(AMT)、废除遗产税以及大幅削减公司税率(包括对所谓“过渡法人企业”(pass-through business)的减税)。凡有的，还要加给他。这是特朗普的教义。这也是最纯粹的老共和党“涓流”(trickle-down)式教义。
Mr Trump won the nomination by promising to be a different sort of Republican. He is not.What he has achieved is to make the “bait and switch” yet more obvious. Post-ReaganRepublicans reached out to the base by campaigning on cultural issues, while legislating for theupper 1 per cent. That is “pluto-populism”. Mr Trump added infrastructure spending, tradeprotectionism and support for Medicare and social security. But he too plans to deliver for thetop 1 per cent.
特朗普通过发誓做不一样的共和党人而赢得提名。但他不是。他能有今天的位置，将把“先许诺、再掉包”那一套更加直白地展露在世人面前。后里根时代的共和党人通过把竞选重心放在文化问题上触及基层民众，同时在立法时偏向最富有的1%的人。这是“富豪民粹主义”。特朗普提出了如下新鲜元素：增加基础设施支出、倡导贸易保护主义、支持联邦医疗保险(Medicare，面向老年人的联邦健康保险)和社会保障。但他同样也打算为最富有的1%的人带来好处。
Pluto-populism is highly politically effective. But it works by making the base ever angrier andmore desperate. That is playing with political fire. The republic may survive Mr Trump. Butwhat comes after?
“富豪民粹主义”在政治上非常行之有效。但它行之有效的方式，是让基层民众越来越愤怒和绝望。这是在政治上玩火。一个特朗普可能不会让美利坚合众国倒下。但接下来会有什么?
相关推荐：
美国高端留学解决方案提供者