刺激方案駕到，赤字削減讓道

????債務(wù)上限和聯(lián)邦支出削減議題甚囂塵上，經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激計(jì)劃似乎已離我們遠(yuǎn)去。果真如此嗎？敝人有一種很強(qiáng)烈的預(yù)感，這個(gè)夏末，兩黨將再次出臺(tái)稅收和開(kāi)支計(jì)劃，藉此拉動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。不妨把它叫做刺激計(jì)劃4.0版吧。

????雖然這個(gè)一攬子方案將使削減赤字的努力成為泡影，但這并不妨礙其通過(guò)立法表決。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)每況愈下，防止經(jīng)濟(jì)二次探底的重?fù)?dān)就落在了白宮和國(guó)會(huì)的肩上。剛剛結(jié)束了第二輪量化寬松政策的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)（Fed）似乎已經(jīng)高掛免戰(zhàn)牌。不久之后，兩黨的現(xiàn)任高層就將開(kāi)始為明年的大選坐立不安。贏得選舉將成為頭等大事，聯(lián)邦政府規(guī)模的爭(zhēng)論則退居次席，這也意味著減稅的規(guī)模將擴(kuò)大，政府的開(kāi)支將增加。

????白宮目前已經(jīng)動(dòng)了延長(zhǎng)削減工資稅的念頭，并將受益對(duì)象擴(kuò)大至雇主，這原本只是個(gè)臨時(shí)決議。這個(gè)預(yù)計(jì)將耗費(fèi)高達(dá)2，000億美元的議案對(duì)共和黨的公司陣營(yíng)具有很大的吸引力，并有可能被拿來(lái)用于爭(zhēng)取提升債務(wù)上限的殺手锏。如果此次流產(chǎn)，該議案將于九月國(guó)會(huì)會(huì)期時(shí)卷土重來(lái)。屆時(shí)，與該議案結(jié)伴同行的還有失業(yè)幫扶方案，例如（再次）延長(zhǎng)失業(yè)救濟(jì)，（再次）增加資本投資的稅收抵免以及為雇傭員工的企業(yè)發(fā)放補(bǔ)助。沒(méi)有一個(gè)是省油的燈。

????這必然引起預(yù)算掌權(quán)人的滿腹牢騷，而且刺激計(jì)劃的反對(duì)者們也會(huì)大談經(jīng)濟(jì)的疲軟正是凱恩斯主義無(wú)用的最好證明。要我說(shuō)的話：就當(dāng)沒(méi)聽(tīng)見(jiàn)。要不是政府出面填補(bǔ)私營(yíng)領(lǐng)域的開(kāi)支漏洞，那么蕭條還將延續(xù)很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間，失業(yè)率也將更高。如果銀行，家庭，消費(fèi)者和當(dāng)?shù)卣栽跒樨?cái)政而發(fā)愁，經(jīng)濟(jì)很可能重新陷入衰退。

????信不信由你。英國(guó)就是一個(gè)最好的例子。英國(guó)政府出臺(tái)了財(cái)政緊縮措施，旨在于2015年前消除赤字。這一措施幾乎將經(jīng)濟(jì)拖累至停滯邊緣。如果國(guó)會(huì)真的打算削減開(kāi)支增加收入，美國(guó)將重蹈英國(guó)的覆轍。

????謝天謝地，美國(guó)對(duì)“穩(wěn)健的財(cái)政”的尊崇只有三分鐘的熱度。一旦經(jīng)濟(jì)徘徊不前，這種尊崇就宛如盛夏陣雨過(guò)后的積水，很快就煙消云散了。2008年2月，布什政府出臺(tái)了刺激計(jì)劃1.0版本，涉及1，500億美元的稅收減免和額外花銷。次年，2009年《美國(guó)恢復(fù)和再投資法案》（American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009）出臺(tái)，開(kāi)支7，870億美元。去年12月，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)(President Obama)和國(guó)會(huì)共和黨議員同意延長(zhǎng)2001年由布什政府實(shí)施的無(wú)視預(yù)算所得稅削減議案，并同意將雇員工資稅稅率下調(diào)兩個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。盡管這個(gè)決議并沒(méi)有貼上官方刺激計(jì)劃的標(biāo)簽，但是政府已為此向經(jīng)濟(jì)注資1，500億美元，預(yù)算赤字也因此進(jìn)一步增加。

????據(jù)稱現(xiàn)在情況變了：兩黨都聲稱將在接下來(lái)的幾年削減4萬(wàn)億美元的赤字。這點(diǎn)我根本無(wú)法相信。在白宮提交的預(yù)算議案中，大部分赤字問(wèn)題的解決集中在2020至2024年，猶如酒鬼戒酒，雖然態(tài)度很堅(jiān)決，但目標(biāo)卻是8年以后在戒酒。國(guó)會(huì)議員保爾?萊恩的計(jì)劃是：可由自身消化的稅收削減應(yīng)結(jié)合相應(yīng)開(kāi)支的大規(guī)模削減。這是典型的共和黨巫術(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)的把戲。

????美國(guó)政治系統(tǒng)似乎對(duì)赤字有慢性偏見(jiàn)癥。沒(méi)有債券市場(chǎng)突然崩盤這劑猛藥，這個(gè)病很難好。長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看，無(wú)力平衡收支將成為國(guó)家償付能力的大敵。然而現(xiàn)在，更多一些“不負(fù)責(zé)任”的刺激性支出才是當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)最為需要的偏方。

????約翰?卡斯迪是《財(cái)富》（Fortune）雜志撰稿人，也是《紐約客》（New Yorker）雜志的正式撰稿人。

????With all the talk of debt ceilings and federal spending cuts, you might think that the era of stimulus programs was behind us. Think again. I strongly suspect that by the end of the summer both parties will be putting together yet another tax and spending bill designed to get the economy going. Call it Stimulus 4.0.

????Such a package will fly in the face of efforts to cut the deficit, but that won't prevent it from being enacted. With the economic picture darkening daily, the burden of preventing another slump is falling on the White House and Congress. The Fed, which has just finished its second dose of quantitative easing, seems determined to sit on its hands. Before long, incumbents in both parties will start to panic about next year's election. Debates about the size of the federal government will take a back seat to getting reelected, and the result will be more tax cuts and spending increases.

????The White House is already floating the idea of rolling over this year's payroll tax cut, which was supposed to be temporary, and extending it to employers. The proposal, which would cost up to $200 billion, appeals to the Republicans' corporate base, and it could even be included in a last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling. If that doesn't happen, the idea will be resurrected in September, when Congress returns to session and when it will be accompanied by other costly suggestions to help the jobless, such as extending unemployment benefits (again), boosting tax credits for capital investments (again), and providing firms with subsidies for hiring people.

????Fiscal hawks will complain, and opponents of stimulus programs will say the economy's weakness demonstrates the futility of Keynesian policies. I say: Let 'em whine. If the government hadn't stepped in to offset a collapse in private sector spending, the Great Recession would have lasted much longer than it did, and the unemployment rate would be even higher. With banks, householders, consumers, and local governments still rebuilding their finances, the economy could easily fall back into a recession.

????You don't believe me? Look at Britain, where the economy has slowed almost to a stop because of an austerity program designed to balance the budget by 2015. If Congress was really serious about slashing spending and raising revenue, we would be on the same path as the Brits.

????In this country, thankfully, the commitment to "sound finance" is about as durable as the residue of a rain shower on a hot day. Whenever the economy stutters, it evaporates. In February 2008 the Bush administration pushed through Stimulus 1.0, a $150 billion package of tax cuts and additional spending. A year later came the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, at $787 billion. Last December, President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to extend the budget-busting income tax cuts Bush introduced in 2001 and to reduce by 2 percentage points the employee's portion of the payroll tax. That wasn't officially labeled a third stimulus package, but it injected another $150 billion into the economy and boosted the deficit.

????Supposedly, things have changed: Both parties say they would cut the deficit by $4 trillion in the coming years. I don't believe a word of it. In the White House's budget proposal, much of the deficit reduction is slated for 2020 to 2024, which is a bit like an alcoholic promising to give up drinking eight years hence. Congressman Paul Ryan's plan is another Republican exercise in voodoo economics: big tax cuts that are supposed to pay for themselves combined with hefty but unspecified cuts in spending programs.

????For good or ill, the American political system has a chronic deficit bias. Absent a sudden collapse in the bond market, it isn't going away. Over the long term, our inability to match spending to revenue presents serious challenges to the country's solvency. For now, though, more "irresponsible" stimulus spending happens to be precisely what the economy needs.

????--John Cassidy is a Fortune contributor and a New Yorker staff writer.