pbs高端访谈:过快减少财政赤字会引发经济衰退

 　　GWEN IFILL:And return to our series of conversations on what to do about the nation's taxes, spending and debt. Last night, we heard from Erskine Bowles, the co-author of a deficit¹ reduction plan that has been the subject of much attention and debate.

　　Tonight, we get a very different take on this. Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist² at PrincetonUniversity and a columnist³ for The New York Times. He joins us now.

　　Erskine Bowles may be one of the people you have written about in the past who you called deficit scolds who were touting⁴ a phantom⁵ menace known as the fiscal⁶ cliff.

　　87.jpg

　　PAUL KRUGMAN,PrincetonUniversity: Yes.

　　GWEN IFILL:Am I right about that?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Fiscal cliff is not a phantom menace. The deficit right now is, the notion that something terrible will happen if we don't deal with the deficit right away.

　　The fiscal cliff is a very different story. That's about reducing the deficit too fast.

　　GWEN IFILL:In fact, you call it an austerity bomb. Describe that, what you mean by that.

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Yes.

　　Well, what's happening is that we are scheduled, unless something is done, basically to do to ourselves gratuitously⁷ what has been happening to some of the European economies.

　　We're going to have substantial spending cuts, substantial tax increases at a time when the economy is still very weak. And, of course, that's a recipe for sliding back into recession.

　　So, we set ourselves up with the land mine in the road in front of our economy, which is not based on anything real. It's just based on our political mess.

　　GWEN IFILL:Well, speaking of political mess, both sides now have what they say are -- what appear to be opening gambits on the table. President Obama released his last week, which called for $1.6 trillion in revenues. And the Republicans came back with their own yesterday.

　　As you have looked at each approach, what do you see in that?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Well, I think it's important. I think the reporting has been a little weak on the Republican plan. It needs air quotes around it, because it isn't really a plan.

　　They're claiming $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, but the specifics they have actually laid out, such as they have, are only about $300 billion. And the rest of it is all just vaporware, claims that they will close loopholes, but they won't say what, claims they will cut spending, but they don't say how.

　　So, the Republican plan is actually just—it's just a smokescreen. It's a Potemkin plan. There's nothing real there.

　　The Obama plan is a very good, very sensible plan, which, as we know, has very little chance of taking place in its current form. But it's—at least it's a real plan. At least we know dwhat it is he's proposing to do.

　　GWEN IFILL:Among the critics of his plan are those who say that it doesn't do anything or speak at all to the question of entitlement reform or at least cutting the costs of entitlement.

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:That's a very weird⁸ thing. It does, in fact. It actually cut a substantial amount from Medicare spending.

　　It actually—of course, the Affordable⁹ Care Act, Obamacare, does a lot to curb¹⁰ the long-run growth of Medicare costs.

　　So, there's actually a lot in there. He's actually done more to bring down the cost curve for Medicare than anyone has ever done before.

　　But in Washington, that is considered not serious because he's not actually taking benefits away from people who need them. So, it's a really weird thing. It's only considered serious if you inflict¹¹ pain on vulnerable people.

　　Obama is actually very serious in the real sense. It's just the notion he hasn't done anything on entitlement reform is totally unfair. He's done more than anyone has ever done before.

　　GWEN IFILL:Well, talk about one part of the Republican, if you want to put air quotes around it, plan, as you replied, and that's the idea of raising the eligibility¹² age for Medicare. Why isn't that something that might actually be a big first step?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Well, first of all, it's very small amounts of money.

　　The Congressional Budget Office put it at a little over $100 billion over 10 years, which is trivial in all this stuff.

　　It doesn't save very much money; 65- and 66-year-olds are young seniors, so they don't cost a lot actually. They don't have the health problems.

　　So, even kicking them off the program doesn't save you very much money. It doesn't bend the cost curve. It makes almost no difference to the financial outlook.

　　But it's cruel. It's taking a lot of people who are counting on being able to have finally guaranteed insurance and kicking them out into a—we don't know whether Obamacare will—how thoroughly¹³ it will be implemented¹⁴. It's just—it's—it's exactly what I was saying, that it sounds serious because it's hurting vulnerable people.

　　But if you actually look at the dollars and cents, it's not serious at all. And, of course, it will cost people much more.

　　You're talking about saving—for every dollar that the government says, you're imposing¹⁵ $2 of costs on the people who are thrown off the program.

　　GWEN IFILL:What about inflation adjustments for Social Security? That would certainly save more.

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:It does save, but, again, it's surprisingly small. I rolled my own estimate and said that's $180 billion over the next 10 years. Other people think it's a bit less than that.

　　It's a really pretty—you know, and, as far as we can tell, the actual inflation rates faced by seniors is, if anything, a bit higher than the official inflation rate. So, you are again inflicting¹⁶ some serious hardship for very little money.

　　All of these things that have occupied all our attention are not actually where the big bucks¹⁷ are. The big bucks are in making high-income people pay higher taxes and in actually addressing health care costs, which the Affordable Care Act does and none of the things that we're talking about now will actually do.

　　GWEN IFILL:Are you hearing movement that I'm not hearing on this idea of raising—of raising taxes on the wealthy? Because that's the one thing that John Boehner has said he will not do, raise rates.

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Yes. I mean, everybody's guess—and I have no more expertise¹⁸ than anyone else—is that we will go over the cliff. Taxes on everybody will go up. Then the Democrats¹⁹ will propose a bill that cuts taxes on the middle class. The Republicans won't dare vote it down.

　　And so we will in the end have gotten higher taxes on the wealthy through this sort of back-door route. That's—Tim Geithner, not always my favorite person, but he is right. You cannot have a serious plan unless those tax rates on the wealthy go up.

　　GWEN IFILL:The president has also proposed something that John Boehner calls silliness—or, I should say, Secretary Geithner actually did—which is taking the idea of the debt ceiling off of Congress' plate, something which members of Congress seem to think at least is a nonstarter.

　　What is the value in putting that out there?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Well, again, it needs to be said. This is crazy.

　　Where do spending and tax revenue come from? They come from bills voted by Congress. So, the way that the debt ceiling works is that Congress can actually vote to not tax enough to pay for the spending it proposes, and then it can refuse to allow the government to borrow the money to make up the difference between its own spending bills and its own tax bills. This is crazy. This is a license²⁰ for continual irresponsibility.

　　And, of course, we're heading for -- the Republicans are attempting to do government by blackmail²¹. Don't -- give us what we want, or we will tank the economy. Nice little economy you have got here. Shame if something were to happen to it. And we can't run on that system. So we have to -- this needs to be taken off the table.

　　GWEN IFILL:So, let's just assume for a moment that we do go over the cliff, as you suspect. Where do we land? Where is that balance that both sides are looking for, your best guess?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Well, I mean, in a way, you could say a balanced outcome is that most of the Bush tax cuts will survive.

　　In fact, the fact of the matter is just a piece of them, a small piece, is going to be taken away. There's a lot of things that the Democrats want, extension of the payroll²² tax, expanded unemployment benefits, more stimulus²³ in general, that probably won't happen if we go over the cliff.

　　So, it's not as if we're talking about a situation in which President Obama gets everything he wants. And I'm not sure. Why is balance—what we want is the least bad outcome for the U.S. economy and the U.S. long-term fiscal outlook that we can get.

　　I don't think that balance is what we're seeking. What we're seeking is —is, let's try not to mess up this situation even more than it already is messed up.

　　GWEN IFILL:Do you agree with Erskine Bowles, who told us last night that where we are right now resembles Kabuki theater?

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:I think it's a little bit more than that.

　　I think that there is a much deeper partisan²⁴ divide. I think Erskine Bowles, bless his heart, still wants to believe that we live in the Washington of 20 or 30 years ago, where reasonable men could get together and make sensible deals.

　　I don't think we're in that Washington anymore. I think this is going to be not—I don't think there's going to be much of a deal. I think there's going to be a kind of—there will be an outcome, which hopefully won't be too bad.

　　But the idea that we're actually going to have guys shaking hands and everybody feeling good about the outcome, that's not—that's not America in the year 2012 or 2013.

　　GWEN IFILL:Paul Krugman of PrincetonUniversity and The New York Times, thanks so much for joining us.

　　PAUL KRUGMAN:Thank you.

1 deficit   

n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差

参考例句：

• The directors have reported a deficit of 2.5 million dollars.董事们报告赤字为250万美元。
• We have a great deficit this year.我们今年有很大亏损。

2 economist   

n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人

参考例句：

• He cast a professional economist's eyes on the problem.他以经济学行家的眼光审视这个问题。
• He's an economist who thinks he knows all the answers.他是个经济学家，自以为什么都懂。

3 columnist   

n.专栏作家

参考例句：

• The host was interviewing a local columnist.节目主持人正在同一位当地的专栏作家交谈。
• She's a columnist for USA Today.她是《今日美国报》的专栏作家。

4 touting   

v.兜售( tout的现在分词 )；招揽；侦查；探听赛马情报

参考例句：

• He's been touting his novel around publishers for years. 他几年来一直到处找出版商兜售自己的小说。 来自《简明英汉词典》
• Technology industry leaders are touting cars as a hot area for growth. 科技产业领袖吹捧为增长热点地区的汽车。 来自互联网

5 phantom   

n.幻影，虚位，幽灵；adj.错觉的，幻影的，幽灵的

参考例句：

• I found myself staring at her as if she were a phantom.我发现自己瞪大眼睛看着她，好像她是一个幽灵。
• He is only a phantom of a king.他只是有名无实的国王。

6 fiscal   

adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的

参考例句：

• The increase of taxation is an important fiscal policy.增税是一项重要的财政政策。
• The government has two basic strategies of fiscal policy available.政府有两个可行的财政政策基本战略。

7 gratuitously   

平白

参考例句：

• They rebuild their houses for them gratuitously when they are ruined. 如果他们的房屋要坍了，就会有人替他们重盖，不要工资。 来自互联网
• He insulted us gratuitously. 他在毫无理由的情况下侮辱了我们。 来自互联网

8 weird   

adj.古怪的，离奇的；怪诞的，神秘而可怕的

参考例句：

• From his weird behaviour,he seems a bit of an oddity.从他不寻常的行为看来，他好像有点怪。
• His weird clothes really gas me.他的怪衣裳简直笑死人。

9 affordable   

adj.支付得起的，不太昂贵的

参考例句：

• The rent for the four-roomed house is affordable.四居室房屋的房租付得起。
• There are few affordable apartments in big cities.在大城市中没有几所公寓是便宜的。

10 curb   

n.场外证券市场，场外交易；vt.制止，抑制

参考例句：

• I could not curb my anger.我按捺不住我的愤怒。
• You must curb your daughter when you are in church.你在教堂时必须管住你的女儿。

11 inflict   

vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担

参考例句：

• Don't inflict your ideas on me.不要把你的想法强加于我。
• Don't inflict damage on any person.不要伤害任何人。

12 eligibility   

n.合格，资格

参考例句：

• What are the eligibility requirements? 病人被选参加试验的要求是什么？ 来自英汉非文学 - 生命科学 - 回顾与展望
• Eligibility for HINARI access is based on gross national income (GNI). 进入HINARI获取计划是依据国民总收入来评定的。

13 thoroughly   

adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地

参考例句：

• The soil must be thoroughly turned over before planting.一定要先把土地深翻一遍再下种。
• The soldiers have been thoroughly instructed in the care of their weapons.士兵们都系统地接受过保护武器的训练。

14 implemented   

v.实现( implement的过去式和过去分词 )；执行；贯彻；使生效

参考例句：

• This agreement, if not implemented, is a mere scrap of paper. 这个协定如不执行只不过是一纸空文。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
• The economy is in danger of collapse unless far-reaching reforms are implemented. 如果不实施影响深远的改革，经济就面临崩溃的危险。 来自辞典例句

15 imposing   

adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的

参考例句：

• The fortress is an imposing building.这座城堡是一座宏伟的建筑。
• He has lost his imposing appearance.他已失去堂堂仪表。

16 inflicting   

把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的现在分词 )

参考例句：

• He was charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. 他被控蓄意严重伤害他人身体。
• It's impossible to do research without inflicting some pain on animals. 搞研究不让动物遭点罪是不可能的。

17 bucks   

n.雄鹿( buck的名词复数 )；钱；（英国十九世纪初的）花花公子；（用于某些表达方式）责任v.（马等）猛然弓背跃起( buck的第三人称单数 )；抵制；猛然震荡；马等尥起后蹄跳跃

参考例句：

• They cost ten bucks. 这些值十元钱。
• They are hunting for bucks. 他们正在猎雄兔。 来自《简明英汉词典》

18 expertise   

n.专门知识(或技能等)，专长

参考例句：

• We were amazed at his expertise on the ski slopes.他斜坡滑雪的技能使我们赞叹不已。
• You really have the technical expertise in a new breakthrough.让你真正在专业技术上有一个全新的突破。

19 democrats   

n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• The Democrats held a pep rally on Capitol Hill yesterday. 民主党昨天在国会山召开了竞选誓师大会。
• The democrats organize a filibuster in the senate. 民主党党员组织了阻挠议事。 来自《简明英汉词典》

20 license   

n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许

参考例句：

• The foreign guest has a license on the person.这个外国客人随身携带执照。
• The driver was arrested for having false license plates on his car.司机由于使用假车牌而被捕。

21 blackmail   

n.讹诈，敲诈，勒索，胁迫，恫吓

参考例句：

• She demanded ＄1000 blackmail from him.她向他敲诈了1000美元。
• The journalist used blackmail to make the lawyer give him the documents.记者讹诈那名律师交给他文件。

22 payroll   

n.工资表，在职人员名单，工薪总额

参考例句：

• His yearly payroll is $1.2 million.他的年薪是120万美元。
• I can't wait to get my payroll check.我真等不及拿到我的工资单了。

23 stimulus   

n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物

参考例句：

• Regard each failure as a stimulus to further efforts.把每次失利看成对进一步努力的激励。
• Light is a stimulus to growth in plants.光是促进植物生长的一个因素。

24 partisan   

adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒

参考例句：

• In their anger they forget all the partisan quarrels.愤怒之中，他们忘掉一切党派之争。
• The numerous newly created partisan detachments began working slowly towards that region.许多新建的游击队都开始慢慢地向那里移动。