推 MRZ:XDDDD 09/09 02:43
推 BBMak:cap-and-trade: 總量管制與排放交易 09/09 10:27
噓 jody893011:擺明找碴 09/09 11:25
→ pursuistmi:XD就是找碴阿 09/09 13:08
推 overwhelming:蓋核電廠有什麼錯? 不過那個避孕計畫真的是典型保守 09/10 03:43
標題:The List: McCain’s 10 Worst Ideas
Page 1 of 2
Posted September 2008
Last week, FP roasted Barack Obama’s 10 worst ideas. Now, it’s John McCain
on the hot seat.
Creating a League of Democracies
撮合民主聯盟
What he said:“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a
new global compact—a League of Democracies—that can harness the vast
influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to
advance our values and defend our shared interests.” —Speech at the Los
Angeles World Affairs Council, March 26, 2008
馬說：「我們必須強化全球盟邦作為新世界集體（民主聯盟）的核心，如此才能
駕馭超過一百個民主國家來推動我們的價值並捍衛我們的共同利益。」
Why it’s a bad idea: As Thomas Carothers argues in the July/August issue of
FP, “[T]he idea that democracies naturally align is only half right and
risks being a dangerous oversimplification.” Carothers and other critics
have noted that such a league might further weaken the United Nations. For
the most part, world leaders have been cool to the idea, and rightfully so. A
previous iteration, the little-known Community of Democracies, founded in
2000, has stumbled into irrelevance.
壞在：如THOMAS CAROTHERS所說，「民主國家自然團結的想法只對一半，且這個想法
是危險、過於簡化的。」CAROTHERS和其他評論者認為，這種聯盟可能會讓聯合國更
弱。世界各國領袖對這個議題很冷，且應該冷。之前名不見經傳的「民主社群」已經
墮入遺忘之中。
Calling for a Gas-Tax Holiday
提唱油稅假期
What he said: “I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on
gasoline now paid by the American people—from Memorial Day to Labor Day of
this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus—taking a few
dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or
trucker stops to fill up.” —Speech at Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pa., April 15, 2008
馬說：「我提議，聯邦政府在美國陣亡將士紀念日到勞工節之間停止課徵任何油氣稅賦。
這個效果會立即產生經濟測機─每個家庭、農夫、卡車司機的每個油箱裡都能省個幾
塊錢。」
Why it’s a bad idea: Pick your poison. Many (including Dick Cheney) predict
that such a “holiday” would have little effect, as oil companies would just
pocket the difference. Ditching the 18.4-cents-a-gallon gas tax and
24.4-cents-a-gallon diesel tax would deprive the already-strapped Highway
Trust Fund, which relies on gas-tax revenues to fund transportation projects,
of cash. Economists and environmentalists also widely deride the proposal,
which would boost demand and therefore quickly drive prices back up. When you
’re in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.
壞在：選個死法。許多人（包括錢尼）預測這類「節日」效果有限，因為石油公司會
樂得收差價。把汽油稅和柴油稅給晾在一邊只會讓已經綁死的高速公路信用基金損失
鈔票。經濟學者和環保人士也普遍嘲笑這個提議，因為這個題意會刺激需求並且很快
地把價格往上抬。掉到洞裡就別再向下挖了。
Requiring a Three-Fifths Majority to Raise Taxes
要求增稅必須有五分之三多數
What he said: “John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in
Congress to raise taxes.” —Press release, Dec. 18, 2007
馬說：「馬坎相信國會應該要超過五分之三多數才能增稅。」
Why it’s a bad idea: States that have enacted supermajority requirements for
tax increases haven’t exactly entered the pantheon of budgetary glory. Take
California, which requires approval from two thirds of the state legislature
to raise taxes. The Golden State has recently struggled to raise revenues—
and has witnessed an increase in taxes disguised as “fees” as a result.
Raising taxes should be like the use of force in foreign policy—the last
resort, yes, but you never want to take any option off the table.
壞在：採用絕對多數決定增稅的國家並不會進入預算界的榮譽殿堂。加州要求州議會
要超過三分之二才能增稅。現在，金州反而是為了增加收入而用「費用」來魚目混珠。
增稅應該被視為類似於外交政策裡的軍事行動─的確是最後手段，但最好不要把所有
選擇權給做死了。
Flip-flopping on Immigration
移民政策反覆
What he said: “I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. I say it
is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And
their priority is to secure the borders.” —Remarks to reporters in
Simpsonville, S.C., Nov. 3, 2007
馬說：「我瞭解你們會稱呼我是...變動了。我認為這是個關於美國人民認為最重要的
幾個問題是什麼。美國人民最重視的問題是邊境安全。」
Why it’s a bad idea: Immigration was once an issue where McCain could
justifiably claim to be a “maverick,” unafraid to buck party orthodoxy and
popular opinion. The Arizona senator even partnered with Democratic
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2005 to craft a bipartisan bill that would
both give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and boost security at
the U.S.-Mexico border. But with his poll numbers plummeting during the
Republican primary, McCain began trumpeting the party line of “securing the
borders first.” The problem is, without providing more opportunities for
legal immigration or taking steps to build up the Mexican economy, taller
fences and more guards will only address the symptoms, not the ultimate
causes of illegal immigration.
壞在：移民曾是馬坎可以名副其實自稱「獨行俠」，無懼對抗自己黨的正統思想和
民意向背。馬坎甚至還與泰德甘乃迪一同在2005年提出跨黨派法案，給予非法移民
獲得公民權的權利，以及提升美墨邊境安全。但馬坎在民意支持度在共和黨初選時
直直落的情況下，開始提倡共和黨主流意見，即「首先確保邊境安全」。問題是，
沒有提供更多合法移民的機會，或採取措施讓墨西哥的經濟力提升，更高的圍牆以
及更多的警衛只能治標，不能治非法移民的根本。
Drilling Our Way Out of the Oil Crisis
鑽出一條逃離石油危機的生路
What he said: “Gas prices are through the roof. Energy costs have seeped
into our grocery bills, making it more expensive to feed our families. ... It
is time for America to get serious about energy independence, and that means
we need to start drilling offshore at advanced oil rigs like this.” —Press
conference on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, Aug. 19, 2008
馬說：「油氣價格已經破表。能源成本已經滲入我們的菜錢裡，讓餵飽家庭更加昂貴。
...現在美國應該嚴肅地追求能源獨立，也意味著我們必須開始開發沿岸石油，建立
如這類先進油井的設施。」
Why it’s a bad idea: Even ignoring potential environmental impacts, lifting
the moratorium on offshore drilling would make little difference for
consumers. According to the government’s own Energy Information
Administration, production of the new supplies would not even begin until
2017 and would have little effect on what Americans pay at the pump anyway—
just a few cents a gallon by 2030 under the best-case scenario. More to the
point, it’s a strategy of yesteryear. As columnist Thomas Friedman put it in
a recent interview with FP, “When I hear McCain pounding the table for ‘
drill, drill, drill,’ it reminds me of someone pounding the table for IBM
Selectric typewriters on the eve of the IT revolution.”
壞在：即便忽略潛在環境衝擊，把沿岸採油的禁令取消對消費者來說沒有多大影響。
根據政府自己的能源信息管理局資料，生產新油料要到2017年才會開始，並且不會
對美國人付出的油錢有任何影響─最好情況是大概2030年的時候可以省個幾毛錢。
更重要的，這是過時的戰略思維。專欄作家FRIEDMAN提到，「當我聽到馬坎敲著
桌子喊鑽，鑽，鑽，這讓我想到某個人在IT革命前夕敲著IBM Selectric打字機
的情景。」
Balancing the Budget through Victory in the War on Terror
透過反恐戰爭勝利來平衡預算
What he said: “The McCain administration would reserve all savings from
victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic
extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with
deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.” —Jobs
for America: The McCain Economic Plan, released July 7, 2008
馬說：馬坎政府會把伊拉克和阿富汗對抗伊斯蘭極端主義份子的勝利存下來的錢用來
減少赤字。既然戰爭所有的花費都靠赤字來生銀彈，那存下的前就應該拿來抵銷赤字。
Why it’s a bad idea: The yearly bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is
certainly enormous. Yet it still covers less than half of the United States’
projected $490 billion deficit for 2009. Given the massive tax cuts that
McCain also supports, it’s unclear how his debt-reduction math adds up.
McCain opposes a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, yet he feels confident
enough to budget for victory by the end of his first term. Afghanistan is
getting worse, not better. And as for “the fight against Islamic extremists,
” how does one even define victory? Don’t try asking McCain: He doesn’t
have an answer.
壞在：每年在伊拉克和阿富汗的戰爭帳單當然龐大。但這仍然只佔美國預測2009年預算裡
4900億赤字的一半或更少。馬坎既然支持大裁稅率，到底他要怎麼算才能消赤字實在不
清楚。馬坎反對提出自伊拉克撤退的時間表，但他感到有信心能夠有足夠預算讓他第一任
結束前就能大獲成功。阿富汗情況是更糟，不是更好。至於「對抗伊斯蘭極端主義份子」
這場戰爭到底要怎麼看才算是勝利？別問馬坎，他沒答案。
Making the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
把布希減稅政策永久化
What he said: “We’ve got to make these tax cuts permanent. We have to,
otherwise I think it’ll have a negative impact on our economy.” —NBC’s
Meet the Press, Jan. 27, 2008
馬說：我們必須要把這些減稅措施永久化。我們必須至三座，不然我認為會對經濟造成
負面影響。」
Why it’s a bad idea: You might say McCain was against the $1.35 trillion
Bush tax cuts before he was for them. In 2004, he said he opposed them “
because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans.”
Now, he says he supports them because the economy is weakening. Yet “the
tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it,”
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. McCain insists he
will restrain spending and eliminate the budget deficit. But McCain’s budget
numbers simply don’t add up, and the senator’s constant hammering on
congressional earmarks misses the big picture: Defense and entitlement
programs are where most of the fat lies, not in relatively small pork
projects such as Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
壞在：你或許會說馬坎曾反對1.35兆的布希減稅政策，是後來才支持的。2004年時，
馬坎說他反對這些減稅政策，「因為對最富有的美國人課徵了不合比例的稅」。現在，
馬坎說他支持這些減稅政策，因為經濟正在衰退。然而，「減稅政策似乎會減緩長期
成長而非促進成長，」根據美國預算和政策優先權自由中心研究顯示。馬坎堅持
他會控制花費，並銷匿赤字。但馬坎的預算數字算來怪怪，而他不斷抨擊國會頭頭則
忽略了大方向：「國防和津貼計畫才是油水多的地方，而非向是阿拉斯加惡名昭彰的
「通往無處的橋」這種小菜一碟。
Supporting Abstinence-Only Education and the Global Gag Rule
支持性純潔教育政策和全球計畫生育扼制政策
What he said: Asked on the campaign trail if he thought grants for sex
education should include instruction on contraception, McCain turned to an
aide for help, saying, “Brian, would you find out what my position is on
contraception—I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure
I support the president’s policies on it.” The reporter asked, “Do you
think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?” After a long pause,
McCain replied, “You’ve stumped me.” —Town hall meeting, Iowa, Mar. 16,
2007
馬說：當被問到他是否認為教育政策應該包括如何避孕的教材，馬坎轉向他的助手
求救，說，「BRIAN，幫我搞清楚我對避孕的立場是什麼─我大概確定我是反對政府
在這上面花錢，我確定我支持總統的政策。」記者問到，「妳是否認為避孕行為幫助
扼制HIV的蔓延？」一段不短的沈沒後，馬坎說，「你考倒我了。」
Why it’s a bad idea: A landmark, 10-year study sponsored by Congress found
in 2007 that students in sexual-abstinence programs “were just as likely to
have sex as those who did not, reported having similar numbers of sexual
partners, and first had sex at about the same age,” the Chicago Tribune
reported. Abstinence-only education is one of the core principles guiding the
so-called global gag rule, an executive order passed by President George W.
Bush in 2001 that prohibits giving foreign aid to NGOs that offer any kind of
counseling on abortion as family planning. McCain voted against repealing the
measure in 2005. Critics of the gag rule point to reports showing a shortage
of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV/AIDS education, and
a rise in unsafe abortions since it was instituted.
壞在：一個國會支持的、有代表性的十年研究於2007年發現,參與性禁慾計畫的學生
「與那些沒參與的學生同樣有可能進行性行為，有類似數量的幸伴侶，以及在幾乎
相同的年紀進行第一次性行為，」芝加哥先鋒報報導。性純潔教育是所謂全球計畫生育
扼制計畫裡最核心的價值之一。布希政府逾2001年通過該計畫，其中包括禁止提供
非政府組織任何輔導墮胎做為家庭計畫的外援。馬坎於2005年時投票反對將此計畫取消。
對這個扼制計畫的批評者指出缺乏避孕工具，診所關門，HIV/愛滋病教育基金流失，
以及不安全的墮胎手術比例在該計畫開始實施後上升。
Calling for 45 Nuclear Power Plants
呼籲蓋45座核能電廠
What he said: “If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course
to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100
new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.” —Speech
in Springfield, Mo., June 18, 2008
馬說：我當總統後，會把國家方向調整為於2030年前建造45座新的核子反應爐，以及
遠程目標的100座新廠，來供應美國家庭工廠和城市電。
Why it’s a bad idea: There are many good reasons to be skeptical of the
widespread new enthusiasm for nuclear power, including its high-and-rising
costs, but perhaps the best one is that, as experts Charles Ferguson and
Sharon Squassoni explained in 2007, “a nuclear renaissance will take too
long to have a significant effect” on climate change. Moreover, how do we
know that 45 is the right number? A drop in the price of alternative fuels
could “make nuclear plants look like white elephants,” the Wall Street
Journal noted in May. For someone who likes to extol the virtues of the free
market, McCain’s target sure smacks of socialist planning.
壞在：對核能的新喜好有許多批評的聲浪，包括高昇的價格。但其中最重要的是「一個
核能復興在氣候變遷層面需要花很久時間才能有明顯成效。」另外，我們要如何才知道
45做就是對的數字？替代能源價格突然崩跌可能會讓「核能電廠看起來像白大象，」
華爾街日報五月提到。有些人喜歡剝削自由市場的好處，而馬坎的目標確實把社會主義的
計畫上。
Backing Cap-and-Trade Without a 100 Percent Auction
What he said: “We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring
progress by reference to past carbon emissions. … Over time, an increasing
fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding
federal revenues that can be put to good use.” —Speech in Portland, Ore.,
May 12, 2008
支持上限─貿易，而非100拍賣。
馬說：我們會訂出特定排放量的上限，衡量過去碳排放的參考例子。...一段時間後，
對排放量許可的一部份增加能夠透過拍賣供應中國東部，讓聯邦財收能夠被妥善利用。
Why it’s a bad idea: McCain’s gotten credit for supporting a cap-and-trade
system, but his specific proposal is pretty weak. Cap-and-trade systems work
by putting a ceiling on carbon emissions, and then allocating permits that
give companies the right to pollute a given amount. From an environmental
standpoint, it doesn’t much matter how you initially distribute the permits,
as long as the cap is stringent enough. But most economists think that,
unless you first auction these off in a transparent process, you’re
basically enabling a massive corporate giveaway, raising the likelihood that
well-connected corporations or industries will get sweetheart deals, and
failing to capture revenue that can pay for other priorities.
壞在：馬坎對於上限貿易系統一向支持，但他的特定提議十分軟。上限貿易系統
是透過給予碳排放上限來重新分配，並讓公司有限度地繼續污染。從環境保護的
角度來看，這並非關於你原本散佈的核可是什麼。但多數經濟學家認為，除非第
一次拍賣能在公平公開的過程中賣出，基本上你就給予一個龐大企業遲早崩盤，
並提出可能性，讓聯繫良好的企業或工業獲得甜頭協議，而無法抓住營收來負擔
其他優先權。
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4465&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 (09/09 03:35)