推 yeh67:除了轟炸巴基斯坦無法接受 其它不算爛主意 09/08 22:52
※ 編輯: pursuistmi 來自: 220.129.162.245 (09/09 01:12)
推 MRZ:我等著看這位作者怎麼批評馬侃的政見 09/09 01:13
標題:The List: Obama’s 10 Worst Ideas
Posted September 2008
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have many smart policy proposals, but not
all of them are ready for prime time. This week, FP looks at 10 Obama ideas
that should have never seen the light of day. Next week? McCain on the hot
seat.
歐巴馬和馬坎都有幾招不錯的政策，但並非全部都該端上台面。這禮拜，FP回顧歐巴馬
十大不該見天日的壞主意。下禮拜，換馬坎。
Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement
重新談判NAFTA
What he said: “I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should
use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually
get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” —Democratic
primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008
歐說：「我會確保我們重新談判...我想我們應該弄隻跳脫逃款的錘子當作保險，確保
勞工和環境有落實我們協議的標準。」─022608克里福蘭民主黨初選辯論
Why it’s a bad idea: Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and Mexico
and Canada would almost certainly seek new concessions of their own in a new
round. Obama is right to argue that more economic development in Mexico will
lower illegal immigration; he’s wrong to think that bashing NAFTA is the
right way to address the Rust Belt’s economic woes. Happily, since the Ohio
primary, Obama has backed off his harshest criticisms of the agreement.
壞在：貿易協定談判要好幾年，而墨西哥和加拿大下回合裡幾乎確定會致力爭取
好處。歐巴馬認為墨西哥經濟發展能減少非法移民是正確的；但他錯在認為攻擊NAFTA
就是解決五大湖經濟衰退的正確方法。幸好，自從俄懷俄州初選後，歐巴馬對NAFTA的
批評就低調許多。
Opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
反對美國─哥倫比亞自由貿易協定
What he said: “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if
President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against
unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we
have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” —Speech to
Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008
歐說：「布希堅持要把美哥自由貿易協定送到國會的話我一定反對，因為哥國內對工會
的暴力會讓我們堅持列入這類條款中的勞工保障項目蒙羞。」─040208對費城AFL─CIO
演講.
Why it’s a bad idea: Although Obama citied antilabor violence, the murder
rate for union members in Colombia last year was 4 per 100,000, well below
the rate for the general population. The deal carries little to no cost for
the United States; economists actually predict modest increases in U.S.
exports. The upshot for an important ally in the war on drugs, however, is
high, and consolidating Colombia’s commitment to open trade with the United
States is a worthy goal.
壞在：雖然歐巴馬提反勞工暴力，哥國去年的公會成員謀殺率是十萬分之四，絕對低於
全民的比率。該協定幾乎不花美國半毛錢；經濟學家甚至預測美國出口會稍微成長。
但對聯繫個反毒戰爭盟友來說，影響就無比巨大，而把哥國開放對美貿易的承諾具體化
是個有價值的目標。
Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan
公開談論對巴基斯坦進行轟炸
What he said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist
targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007
歐說：如果我們接獲高價值恐怖份子目標的情報，而穆沙拉夫總統按兵不動，我們
就動。」080107華盛頓特區威爾遜國際中心演講。
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging in military strikes in Pakistan happens to be
established policy. But, as none other than Joe Biden pointed out last
August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to
do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their
sovereignty.”
壞在：在巴基斯坦進行軍事攻擊已經是美國國策。但就如拜登去年八月提出的，「那可
做不可說。...最做不得的事就是電告巴基斯坦人說我們要侵犯他們主權。」
Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
What he said: Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without
precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or
anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North
Korea,” Obama replied: “I would.” —Democratic primary debate, Charleston,
S.C., July 23, 2007
與伊朗總統座談
歐說：當被問到他是否「願意單獨、無前提、在執政第一年內、於華盛頓或其他地方，
與伊朗、敘利亞、委內斯瑞拉、古巴、和北韓領導人會面」時，說：「我會」。
Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging rogue states can be a savvy move, and even the
Bush administration has negotiated with Pyongyang and sent envoys to meetings
with Iran. But sitting down with heads of state without precondition? That’s
another thing entirely, especially when it comes to Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. As Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour told the Wall
Street Journal, “Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically:
bombing Iran or major efforts to engage.” No wonder Obama’s foreign-policy
team has walked back its candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks.
壞在：與流氓國家接觸或許是個妙步，且連布希政府都有與平壤談判並派遣使團赴
伊朗參加會議。但沒前提就座談？這又是另外一件事情了，特別是面對伊朗總統
艾哈邁迪。凱內基基金會專家Sadjadpour告訴華爾街日報說，「能在政治方面重振
艾哈邁迪的只有兩件事：轟炸伊朗，或大動作接觸。」難怪歐巴馬的外交組拼命在
幫他們參選人的口誤消毒。
Pushing the Patriot Employer Act
推動愛國雇主法案
What he said: “When I am president … I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act
that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate—we will end the
tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those
breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in
America.” —Speech in Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008
歐說：「我上任後...會通過我從進入參議院以來就一直推動的愛國雇主法案。我們會
終止那些把工作移出美國的公司的減稅政策，我們也會把這些減稅好處提供給那些提供
美國人好工作、好薪資的公司。」021308威斯康辛Janesville演講。
Why it’s a bad idea: British economists Willem Buiter and Anne Sibert slam
the bill as, “reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.” That
’s a bit much. A little populist pandering is hardly a threat to the global
economic order—the bill offers employers a small tax credit if they meet six
conditions, including the probably unworkable provision that they keep their
headquarters in the United States. It’s never smart economic policy to
reward companies for placing limitations on their own profitable activities,
but as The Economist put it, “Obama deserves a slap on the wrist” for this
one, not a full-throated indictment.
壞在：兩位英國經濟學家批評該法案為「反動、民粹、恐外、單純智缺。」是有點太
超過。搞一點點民粹不致威脅國際經濟秩序─該法案給能滿足六項條件的雇主一點
稅率優惠（其中包括大概不切實際的條款，把總部設在美國）。獎勵公司自行限制自己
採取可獲利的措施決不是個明智的經濟政策，但就如經濟學人所言，「歐巴馬該打個
手心」，而不是被大力譴責。
Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels
推動煤轉液體燃料
What he said: “The people I meet in town hall meetings back home would
rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in Southern Illinois
than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia. We already have the
technology to do this in a way that’s both clean and efficient. What we’ve
been lacking is the political will.” —Statement introducing the
Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006, June 7, 2006
歐說：「我在市政廳遇過的人回家後都會寧願把自己的車裝滿南伊利諾州煤礦製成的
燃料，而非來自沙烏地阿拉伯的燃油。我們科技已經達到了，不僅乾淨而且有效率。
我們缺乏的是政治意願。」060706引介2006煤轉燃料推動法案演說。
Why it’s a bad idea: Obama’s energy policy has much to commend it. But
borrowing an idea from World War II Germany and apartheid South Africa? Bad
move. Coal-to-liquid fuels produce nearly twice the greenhouse gases of
ordinary petroleum, experts say, and it’s foolish to subsidize an industry
that easily could go under if oil prices fall. Under withering fire from
environmentalists, the Obama camp clarified his position in June 2007 as, “
[U]nless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not
support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least
20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.” It’s since been
dropped from campaign materials.
壞在：歐巴馬能源政策很支持這個法案。但從二戰德國跟種族分離政策的南非取
回來的經？敗步。專家說，煤轉液態燃料比普通汽油生產兩倍的溫室氣體，且補貼
易受油價波折影響的企業就是不聰明。在環保人士的砲火轟擊下，歐巴馬陣營在07年
六月明確定義自己政策為「除非並且直到這個科技已臻完善前，歐巴馬不會支持任何
煤轉液態燃料的發展，除非他們至少比傳統燃料的全生命週期還少至少20％。」但這
已經被歐巴馬陣營給丟棄了。
Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Under $50,000
What he said: “I’ll make retirement more secure for America’s seniors by
eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year.”
—Speech on Nov. 7, 2007, in Bettendorf, Iowa
歐說：「我會讓美國老年人的退休生活更有保障：取消所有年收入五萬美金的退休人士
的所得稅。」110707Bettendorf愛荷華演講。
Why it’s a bad idea: Most seniors already pay no income taxes. That’s
because they already get preferential treatment in the tax code. Plus, why
are seniors more deserving of tax relief than struggling young families? The
Tax Policy Center—run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute—
criticized the idea in a recent report, saying that because government
spending on seniors is already set to balloon due to retiring baby boomers, “
it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.”
壞在：許多老年人已經不付所得稅了。這是因為他們在稅費裡有特殊待遇了。另外，
為什麼老年人應該比在掙扎中的年輕家庭更配得稅率優惠？稅務政策中心─Brookings
Institution和Urban institute主持的─在一篇最近的報導中批評這個想法，
並說因為政府花費在老年人上的財力即將要因為應付嬰兒潮世代所以膨脹。瞄準某
族群的所得稅優惠似乎不太適當。」
Boosting Ethanol Subsidies
增加乙醇補貼
What he said: “[Ethanol] ultimately helps our national security, because
right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile
nations on earth.” —Statement at the opening of a VeraSun Energy ethanol
processing plant in Charles City, Iowa, August 2007
歐說：「乙醇會幫助我們的國家安全，因為我們現在正在把數十億的美金送給世界上
對我們最有敵意的國家。」
Why it’s a bad idea: As economist Paul Krugman has written, corn-based
ethanol is “bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet—what
’s not to love?” World Bank economist Daniel Mitchell blames biofuels,
including ethanol, for a 75 percent increase in global food prices since 2002
that has led to economic distress and rioting in such countries as Haiti,
Egypt, and Somalia. There’s also little evidence that they do much to
prevent global warming. A recent study published in Science demonstrated that
the farmland needed to grow corn for ethanol results in deforestation on a
massive scale, negating any benefit the reduction in carbon emissions might
have. So why does the senator support such a wasteful and damaging subsidy,
even voting for the recent farm bill’s billions in pork for ethanol
producers? “[B]ecause Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said in
April. At least he’s honest.
壞在：經濟學家KRUGMAN寫到，玉米生產的乙醇「對經濟壞，對消費者壞，對地球壞─
愛不愛？」世界銀行經濟學家Daniel Mitchell認為生質油（包括乙醇）應該負責全球
糧價自2002年以來抬升75％、造成海地、埃及、和索馬利亞等國的動亂負責。也很少
證據支持生質油對避免暖化有幫助的說法。最近一篇發佈在科學雜誌的研究顯示，
為了開闢農地種植玉米生產乙醇，已經造成大規模森林消失，抵銷任何可能減低碳排放
所帶來的好處。所以，為什麼歐巴馬要支持這種浪費又有破壞性的補貼政策甚至還
投票支持最近給乙醇業者數十億計的補貼政策？「因為伊利諾州...是個主要玉米生產
州，」歐巴馬四月說。至少他很誠實。
Taxing Oil Companies Extra
石油公司課稅加倍
What he said: “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their
windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their
skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.” —Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June
9, 2008
歐說：「我會讓如EXXON等石油公司為他們誇張的利潤付稅，我們會用那筆錢來幫助
美國家庭應付高漲的能源價格以及其他帳單。」
Why it’s a bad idea: He’s attacking the symptom, not the disease. It’s
certainly hard to defend oil companies making record profits while consumers
are struggling to fill their tanks, but Big Oil has very little control over
day-to-day gas prices, which are set by global supply and demand and, of
course, OPEC. By discouraging oil companies from making big profits, such a
tax could potentially discourage them from making investments in new
refineries and finding new oil sources, resulting in fewer jobs and even
higher prices at the pump. Jimmy Carter tried this in 1980, and it only
increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Singling out one particular
industry for punishment because it is politically unpopular doesn’t make
much economic sense, either.
壞在：歐巴馬在治標不是在治本。當然，當消費者忍痛把自己的油箱加滿時，要為
賺進大把鈔票的石油公司辯護是很困難的。但大油佬不能控制每天的油價，那是
全球共需以及OPEC定的價。這類逼石油公司不大賺一筆的稅可能讓石油公司不再建
新廠以及開發新油田，也就會減少工作機會，甚至讓油價飆更高。卡特1980試過，
而這反而逼美國更加依賴外國油源。單純因為政治形象而挑一個企業來懲罰在經濟上
也沒什麼道理。
Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
開放戰略石油庫存
What he said: “We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic
Petroleum Reserve for less-expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas
prices within two weeks.” —Speech in Lansing, Mich., Aug. 4, 2008
歐說：「我們應該賣七千萬桶戰略庫存石油來買比較不貴的原油，過去曾在兩個禮拜
內把油價降低。」
Why it’s a bad idea: Obama was right in July when he said that the strategic
oil reserve “has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.” Selling oil from
the 700 million barrel reserve would increase domestic supply and could drive
down prices in the short term, but encouraging consumers to use more oil isn’
t going to fix anything. And depleting the reserve would leave the United
States vulnerable to a supply disruption caused by a natural disaster or
further unrest in the Middle East. Obama swapped common sense for this
dangerous boondoggle in August after McCain started to hammer him on offshore
drilling. So much for tough truths.
壞在：歐巴馬七月說戰略石油庫存「應該保存起來應付真的危機」是對的。從七億桶裡
撥出一部份來用會增加國內供應並且在短期內把價格壓低，但鼓勵消費者用更多油
解決不了問題。耗盡庫存會讓美國無法應付中東遭受天然災害或社會動盪時引發的
供應短缺。八月，馬坎開始攻擊他的沿岸採油政策時，歐巴馬就把常識扔一旁，抓了個
危險的廢柴提議。事實就是這麼硬。
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4461&page=1
新聞來源: (需有正確連結)
--
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.129.162.245
※ 編輯: pursuistmi 來自: 220.129.162.245 (09/08 22:31)
※ 編輯: pursuistmi 來自: 220.129.162.245 (09/08 23:09)