次贷危机与总统竞选

When George W. Bush first ran for the White House, political reporters assured us that he came across as a reasonable, moderate guy.
当布什初次竞选总统时，时政记者让他给我们留下理性、稳健印象。
Yet those of us who looked at his policy proposals — big tax cuts for the rich and Social Security privatization — had a very different impression. And we were right.
然而那些审视了他的施政方针——对富人减税和社会保障私有化——的人却对他有很不同的看法。而且这种不同看法被证实了。
The moral is that it’s important to take a hard look at what candidates say about policy. It’s true that past promises are no guarantee of future performance. But policy proposals offer a window into candidates’ political souls — a much better window, if you ask me, than a bunch of supposedly revealing anecdotes and out-of-context quotes.
认真审视候选人的施政方针是非常重要的。竞选时的承诺无法保证在未来兑现，这是被事实所证明的。但这些候选人的施政方针为我们了解其深层次的政治意识打开了一扇窗——一扇比那些轶闻和断章取义的引证更好的窗子。
Which brings me to the latest big debate: how should we respond to the mortgage crisis? In the last few days John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have all weighed in. And their proposals arguably say a lot about the kind of president each would be.
这恰恰让我联系到最近的大辩论——我们应如何应对次贷危机？近几天来，麦凯恩、希拉里和奥巴马都对这个问题很重视。而且，可以说他们的言论都表现出了他们将成为什么样的总统。
Mr. McCain is often referred to as a “maverick” and a “moderate,” assessments based mainly on his engaging manner. But his speech on the economy was that of an orthodox, hard-line right-winger.
麦凯恩通常被形容为“见解独特”和“稳健”，这大体上是源于他的人格魅力。但他对经济问题的演讲听起来是保守、强硬的右翼言论。
It’s true that the speech was more about what Mr. McCain wouldn’t do than about what he would. His main action proposal, as far as I can tell, was a call for a national summit of accountants. The whole tone of the speech, however, indicated that Mr. McCain has purged himself of any maverick tendencies he may once have had.
事实上，他的讲话更多是关于他不会做什么而不是他会做什么。我所能听出来的他主要方针是召集一次全国会计大会。可是，从整体上说，这番讲话让麦凯恩曾经的“见解独特”的印象烟消云散。
Many news reports have pointed out that Mr. McCain more or less came out against aid for troubled homeowners: government assistance “should be based solely on preventing systemic risk,” which means that big investment banks qualify but ordinary citizens don’t.
众多新闻报道指出，麦凯恩多少有点反对对有问题的房主们施以援手：国家补助仅应用来对付全面危机。这意味着大型投资银行会得到国家补贴而普通公民不会。
But I was even more struck by Mr. McCain’s declaration that “our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”
更让我震惊的是，麦凯恩称：国家的金融政策应当包括：通过取消限制性规定、审计和税收等障碍来募集资本，以增加金融机构资本。
These days, even free-market enthusiasts are talking about increased regulation of securities firms now that the Fed has shown that it will rush to their rescue if they get into trouble. But Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.
近日，有鉴于美联储表示如果证券公司有麻烦它会立即施以援手，即使自由市场论者也在讨论增加对证券公司的限制。但麦凯恩先生又在老生常谈了（译者注：selling snake oil的意思类似我们说“卖耗子药、卖大力丸……”），声称取消限制和减税包治百病。
Hillary Clinton’s speech could not have been more different.
希拉里的主张则与之大相径庭。
True, Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she might convene a high-level commission, including Alan Greenspan — who bears a lot of responsibility for this crisis — had echoes of the excessively comfortable relationship her husband’s administration developed with the investment industry. But the substance of her policy proposals on mortgages, like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.
克林顿夫人建议设立一个包括格林斯潘在内的高层委员会——成员包括对这场危机的负很大责任的人。没错，这个建议得到了曾与克林顿政府关系无比融洽的投资业界的积极回应。但她关于次贷的政策主旨，如同她的医保方案，显示出强烈的改革性。
Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves the problem of restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders — that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired the mortgages of people whose homes were worth less than their debts, then reduced payments to a level the homeowners could afford.
也许，麦凯恩和希拉里之间最大的区别在抵押贷款重组的问题上。麦凯恩呼吁贷方的自发行动——其实就是政府不作为。希拉里想要的是现代版的房屋贷款公司和收购资不抵债的房主债权的“新政”，然后将贷款偿还额降至房主们能够负担的水平。
Finally, Barack Obama’s speech on the economy on Thursday followed the cautious pattern of his earlier statements on economic issues.
本周四（译者注：文章发表于2008年3月28日）奥巴马发表的经济政策演讲保持了他早先关于经济问题的谨慎态度。
I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises. But his proposals for aid to the victims of the current crisis, though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton’s: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.
我很高兴的看到，奥巴马坚持主张更广泛的金融限制措施，这可以避免未来的危机。虽然他提出了对当前危机受害者有力的帮助计划，却没有希拉里的计划那么彻底：他想推动贷方重组债务，而不是主张政府直接介入。
Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts — middle-class tax cuts, to be sure — a centerpiece of his economic plan. It’s not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.
奥巴马还主张继续的长期减税政策——实际上是对中产阶级减税——这是其经济政策的核心。我们不清楚他怎样能一面减税一面推进医保改革。因此，他对减税的承诺引起了人们对他坚决推动改革进程决心的怀疑。
All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed.
总而言之，候选人们对次贷危机的态度代表了他们对医保改革的态度：言行不一。
Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.
据说，麦凯恩是直爽的喜欢独树一帜的人。但在国内政策上，他既不直爽也没创新，相反，他不知耻地与右翼空想家沆瀣一气。
Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.
据传，“克林顿夫人”虐待小狗并吞噬婴儿（译者注：大选的时候什么样的传闻都有，有兴趣者可Google相关）。但她的政策主张仍然惊人的大胆和进步。
Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.
奥巴马则被在大众心中塑造成一个将引领新时代的革命性人物。但他实际的政策主张虽属自由主义，但倾向于谨慎偏保守。
Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have.
以上的政策对比能告诉我们候选人们会成为怎样的总统吗？这不太可能——但是这种对比分析是我们所能掌握的最佳指南。