《全職家教達人》王老師──台大畢,身兼補教與家教全方位經歷，幫您目標達陣！

Paul Ryan

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: September 04, 2012

Mitt Romney’s choice for vice-president is risky for him, but good for America.

Aug 18th 2012 | from the print edition

BY PICKING Paul Ryan, an athletic and brainy young congressman from Wisconsin, as his running-mate Mitt Romney has delighted Republicans and Democrats in equal measure. To the Republican base, Mr Ryan is the distilled essence of tea, a determined tax-cutter and state-shrinker. To the Democrats, he makes a perfect target for exactly the same reasons. But no one can accuse Mr Romney any longer of being unclear about what he will do if he makes it to the White House (see article).

There is much to like about the personable Mr Ryan. He is a brave man: he was the first politician to produce a budget with a plausible plan for closing the deficit, which he did in April last year. He constantly reminds America that deficit reduction is a necessity not a luxury; and since Barack Obama has failed to do this, his persistence is especially welcome. He has said publicly and clearly that Medicare, the government-run health-insurance scheme for the elderly, is unaffordable and will, if left unreformed, go bankrupt; and persuaded his party to accept this. He has devised a plausible alternative to the current open-ended, state-financed system: government-funded vouchers toward buying insurance. He has already shown that he can work on this issue in a pragmatic and bipartisan way, refining his proposal by melding it with the ideas of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat.

Mr Ryan is right, too, to call for sweeping tax reform. America’s tax code is a convoluted mess. Its marginal rates are high: American companies pay some of the steepest in the world. At the same time, it includes so many exemptions, giveaways and rebates that those who can game the system pay effective rates that are too low, benefiting their accountants and lawyers but leaving government short of cash. Mr Ryan proposes to scrap the six different rates of income tax and replace them with just two bands. He says that his tax reforms will be revenue-neutral, because he will sweep away exemptions to offset the cost of his cuts, of around $500 billion a year.

In principle, this is laudable; but there is a worrying gap in Mr Ryan’s plan. His blueprint does not begin to spell out which exemptions will go, which will stay and which will be means-tested; and exemptions are notoriously hard to get rid of. Until he is more specific, the fear must remain that the Republicans will deliver the spoonful of sugar but not the medicine, as they did under George W. Bush. If that happened, the deficit would balloon, just as it did under Mr Bush. And, with the top rate of income tax falling from 35% to 25%, the rich would benefit while spending cuts hit the poor disproportionately.

Let’s be clear

Mr Ryan was also wrong to vote against the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission, which he did on the grounds that it wanted to close the deficit partly through an increase in tax revenues. He believes that the gap should be closed wholly through spending cuts. Because Mr Ryan, in true Republican fashion, wants to increase spending on defence, everything else—poverty relief, transport infrastructure, environmental protection and education, for instance—will have to be squeezed intolerably.

Mr Ryan’s frankness about America’s fiscal position may put off many voters—especially those who expect to depend on Medicare in the near future. He may, therefore, harm Mr Romney’s chances of election. But although his thinking is open to much criticism, his clarity is a virtue, and increases the chances that voters will be presented with a proper choice on the central issue of this November’s presidential election: how big America’s government should be.

from the print edition | Leaders

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2012

稅改、減赤 幫得了羅姆尼嗎？

2012-08-22 天下雜誌 504期 作者：經濟學人

美國共和黨副總統候選人萊恩，年輕敢言，大聲疾呼「減赤」、「稅改」，但他對美國財政的坦白，對羅姆尼的選情是加分？還是減分？

羅姆尼選了威斯康辛州的年輕議員萊恩為競選搭檔，讓民主黨和共和黨都很高興。

共和黨眼中，萊恩是「茶黨」蒸餾出的精華：他堅決減稅，支持小政府。也因此，他成為民主黨完美的攻擊目標。但從此，沒人再批評羅姆尼說不清楚，入主白宮後會有什麼作為了。

萊恩很勇敢。去年四月，為了終結赤字，他提出一個看似有理的計劃，而他是第一個這麼做的政客。他也持續提醒，「減赤」對美國是必需品，而非奢侈品。由於歐巴馬在這方面的失敗，他的堅持特別受歡迎。

他曾公開說，政府已無力負擔老年人的醫療保險，如果不改革，就會破產。針對現在開放式、州補助的系統，他設計出一個看似合理的替代方案：政府出資，發放保險券。

而且，他融合了奧瑞岡民主黨參議員威登（Ron Wyden）的想法，證明自己可以實際、且包容兩黨地處理這個議題。

萊恩在呼籲「廣泛稅改」這件事上，也做得很對。

多出一年五千億美元稅收

美國的稅收制度一團混亂。它的邊際稅率很高，又包含許多免稅、贈與以及退款。懂得鑽制度漏洞的人稅率太低，讓會計師和律師得利，政府卻現金短少。

萊恩建議，廢除原有六種所得稅率，改為兩種。並要去除免稅，補償因減稅而少掉的稅收，大約是一年五千億美元。

原則上，這些建議是值得讚賞。但萊恩的藍圖並未說明哪些免稅條件該去除，哪些該保留，哪些又可以有免入息審查。

而且，民眾至今仍擔心，共和黨給的只是一匙糖，而不是藥。隨著最高所得稅率由三五％，掉到二五％，富人將受益，窮人卻因消費縮減，而不成比例地受害。

萊恩坦白面對美國財務狀況的態度，可能會觸怒很多選民，特別是未來要依賴醫療保險的人。這對羅姆尼的選情不利。

但萊恩的清晰明確值得讚揚，也讓選民在「美國政府該有多大」這件事上，有另外一種選擇。因為，這正是今年十一月美國總統大選的核心議題。（謝明玲譯）