The Obama Agenda

By Paul Krugman

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.

But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.

Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.

Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.

Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.

Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!)

But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.

And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.

The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

歐巴馬應放膽實施「新新政」

2008年11月4日星期二，這是永留青史（遺臭萬年的相反）的日子。如果我們選出第一位非洲裔總統沒讓你激動莫名，沒讓你熱淚盈眶，你八成有問題。

但這次選舉也是使政策產生實質改變的轉捩點嗎？歐巴馬真能帶來進步主義政策（註：著重社會公義的政策，以小羅斯福的新政為代表）的新紀元嗎？是的，他辦得到。

現在，許多評論家呼籲歐巴馬不要野心太大。某些人這麼說是基於政治（選舉）考量：他們說，美國仍是個保守國家，如果民主黨人向左移動，選民會懲罰他們。其他人說，金融和經濟危機讓他沒有採取健保改革之類行動的空間。

希望歐巴馬有足夠的智慧，不去理會這樣的建議。

關於上述的政治論述：任何懷疑我們的政治版圖已出現重大調整的人，應看看國會的情勢。在2004年大選後，許多人宣稱我們已進入共和黨長期或永遠一黨獨大的時代。在那之後，民主黨接連兩次選舉都獲勝，贏得至少12席參院席次和50多席眾院席次。現在民主黨在參眾兩院的多數優勢，比共和黨獨霸國會12年期間更大。

同時也請謹記，今年總統選舉是對政治哲學的公投，進步主義勝出。

彰顯此一事實之重要的最好方法，也許是與四年前的選舉比較。2004 年，布希總統隱藏了他真正的施政方針。他的基本選戰策略是捍衛國家免於受到同性結婚的恐怖分子攻擊。在選後不久，他宣布他的優先政策是把社會安全福利制度民營化，連他的支持者都感錯愕。這不是選民投票時支持的政策，民營化運動很快就從神主牌變成了鬧劇。

今年歐巴馬的政見是保障健保和中產階級減稅，拿對富人增課的稅收支付。馬侃譴責對手是社會主義者和「財富重新分配者」，但美國人還是選了歐巴馬。這是選民實在的付託。

那麼，經濟危機將使進步主義施政計畫變得負擔不起的論調，又如何呢？

對抗危機無疑需支出許多錢。挽救金融體系可能需要比目前已撥款款項還要大的支出。更重要的，我們迫切需要增加政府支出以維持生產和就業的方案。明年的聯邦預算赤字會達到一兆美元嗎？沒錯。

但根據經濟學教科書的標準說法，在面對經濟衰退時，暫時的赤字不成問題，事實上還是適當的。同時，一兩年的赤字雖會小幅提高未來聯邦利息支出，但應不致阻礙健保計畫，這項計畫就算快速完成立法，可能到2011年才會生效。

此外，經濟危機的因應措施本身正是推動進步主義施政方針的機會。

歐巴馬政府不應效法布希政府的習性，事事都當成支持政府所偏好政策的論據。（衰退？經濟需要幫助，讓我們對富人減稅！復甦？對富人減稅的政策奏效，讓我們減更多！）

但如果新政府指出，相信貪婪是好事的保守意識形態多少促成這次危機，這種說法是公平的。小羅斯福在他第二任就職演說中說：「我們知道莽撞的追求自身利益是壞品行；我們現在知道這也是壞的經濟政策。」這句話再正確不過。

現在剛巧碰到反過來說也對的時代，好的品行也是好的經濟政策。在危機時候，透過擴大健保和失業福利，幫助最需要的人，這在道德上是對的事；也是比降低資本利得稅有效得多的刺激經濟形式。對財務吃緊的州和地方政府提供援助，讓他們維持必要公共服務，對仰賴這些服務的人很重要；這也是避免失業和降低經濟衰退深度的方法。

因此，嚴肅的進步主義施政方針，可稱為「新新政」，不只在經濟上行得通，也正是美國經濟體所需要的。

最要緊的，歐巴馬不應聽那些試圖嚇唬他，讓他當個沒有作為總統的人的話，他擁有人民給他的政治付託；他手邊有好的經濟政策。你不妨這麼說，他唯一要懼怕的就是恐懼本身。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/07/opinion/edkrugman.php