中期选举之后，美国企业应当乐观

2018美国的中期选举已经尘埃落定，此次选举会给美国大大小小的企业带来哪些影响呢？

首先是移民改革或将提上议事日程——尽管可能性并不高。很多年来，美国企业一致呼吁政府建立一套更有针对性的移民制度，允许更多拥有美国企业急需技能的外籍人才在美合法务工。由于国会两院在移民问题上始终存在重大分歧，因而改革一直无法实施。参议院虽然更加同情企业的利益，但共和党把持下的众议院是不可能给更多移民开口子的，参众两院也就很难对此问题达成妥协。

但是中期选举过后，两院在很多重大议题上已经不至于水火不容了。众议院里的很多民主党人也希望向在美国居留多年的非法移民给予公民身份。很多参议员的选民主要集中在科技、医疗保健和农业等行业，这些行业的企业正迫切需要外籍人才，他们也必须对这些选民的呼声做出回应。

至于移民改革将采取哪种立法形式，现在还很难预测。有一种妥协方案是：众议院的民主党人通过立法手段为“追梦人”（指在孩童时期即进入美国的外籍未成年人——译注）等特殊人群赋予公民身份，而共和党人则同意企业可以雇佣更多合法移民，同时总统也能获得足够的边境安全资金，以换取他签署这项法令。

另一个方案则是个宏大的一揽子计划，既增加了合法移民的总数，也将居留标准向有利于美国经济的移民人才作了调整，不过这个方案要想通过，无异于白日做梦。2013年美国参议院曾以68票通过了类似的一份移民改革法案，但它依旧夭折在了众议院。假如这样一份法案得以通过，必将为美国经济注入一剂强心针，预计未来20年里将促进美国经济增长5.4%，并使生产率提高整整一个百分点。

一直以来，基建都是两党最容易达成妥协的地方，未来两年预计也将出现增长。2015年末，美国国会在两党的共同支持下，通过了《修复美国地面交通法案》（又称《FAST法案》），该法案旨在维持美国在高速公路上的支出，同时适度增加交通运输开支。《FAST法案》的资金到2021年就将到期，也就是说，本届或下届国会必须要把基建提上议事日程了。

至于大规模基建项目如何启动，有一种可能性，是由国会通过以一项法案的形式，增加对铁路和交通系统的投资，减少劳动者的上下班通勤时间，降低商品进市场的成本；增强能源系统抗风险能力，减少自然灾害带来的经济损失；对道路进行现代化改造，以适应即将到来的自动驾驶汽车革命。

不过两党要想在基建问题上达成妥协，也得先解决一些重要阻碍。首先要达成共识的是，这笔钱应该从哪出——虽然事实反复证明，这届国会并不在乎多借一点债。其次，两党对这笔钱应该如何补贴给基建项目，也存在根本分歧。民主党人普遍倾向于直接支出，而特朗普和共和党人则倾向于通过补贴来鼓励基建发展。不过只要国会的野心足够大，应该是能够出台一项两种意见都采纳的法案的。

再次是医疗问题。奥巴马医改至少未来两年还是安全的，另外美国还有三个州已批准扩展Medicaid医疗补助计划的覆盖面，这将使30万低收入人群有资格获得医保。虽说在共和党把持白宫和参议院期间，美国搞全民医保是绝对不可能的，但如果两党都不持异议，本届国会通过一项旨在降低医疗成本、稳定保险市场的法案，却并非没有可能性。

特别值得一提的是，有些获得两党支持的奥巴马医改稳定方案，比如参议员拉马尔·亚历山和帕蒂·默里在2017年提出的方案，很可能会再次被人提起。稳定法案可以写入一系列有意义的调整，比如重新引入费用分摊支付机制；为扩大医保范围而划拨更多资金；扩大低成本、高免赔额的大病计划的覆盖面，等等。这样的一个奥巴马医改稳定方案能扩大医保覆盖人数，同时有助于降低医保价格，甚至能略微降低联邦赤字。

很多研究人员早已指出，更健康的工人是更好的工人。不过最令企业满意的，还是维持奥巴马医保、追加一揽子稳定方案后，带来的医保自付部分的保费下降。由于医保费用会直接侵蚀企业利益，因此只要员工的医保成本下降了，企业就必然会从中受益。

党派分争的存在，意味着美国企业不能指望国会在任何重大问题上取得显著进步。不过如果国会确实在以上任何一个重要议题上找到了妥协的办法，企业都会从中受益很多年。（财富中文网）

本文作者本杰明·哈里斯是凯洛格管理学院KPPI项目主任，曾任美国前副总统拜登的首席经济学家。

译者：朴成奎

With the dust mostly settled on the 2018 midterm elections, now is a good time to consider how the outcome will impact businesses across the country.

Although it’s a long shot, immigration reform is a possibility. For years, American businesses have advocated for an immigration system that allows more workers with in-demand skills to legally work in the U.S., but fundamental differences between the chambers made agreement effectively impossible. A Republican House that fundamentally opposed any increases in immigration was never going to compromise with the Senate, which was more sympathetic to business interests.

But after the midterms, the priorities of both chambers are no longer incompatible. Many House Democrats are eager to provide legal paths to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, while a swath of senators want to be responsive to their business-minded constituents who desperately need workers in key areas like tech, health care, and agriculture.

It’s difficult to predict exactly what form legislation would take. One version is a compromise whereby House Democrats get legal paths to citizenship for populations like Dreamers, Republicans get concessions for businesses to hire more legal immigrants, and the president gets just enough border security funding to secure his signature.

Another version—which many consider a pipe dream—is a more sweeping package that both boosts the total number of legal immigrants and shifts the criteria for residency toward immigrants who would benefit the U.S. economy. Precedent for such a bill can be found in a 2013 package which sailed through the Senate with 68 votes, but never cleared the House. Had it passed, the bill would have been a shot in the arm for the American economy, boosting GDP by 5.4% and raising productivity by a full percentage point over two decades.

Infrastructure has long been fertile ground for bipartisan compromise and could gain traction in the next two years. In late 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act with bipartisan support—maintaining spending for our nation’s highways and providing a modest boost to transit spending. FAST Act funding expires in 2021, which means this Congress or the next will have to take it up.

One possibility is a bill that boosts our nation’s investment in rail and transit systems, cutting down on the time workers spend commuting and the costs of getting goods to market; makes our energy systems more resilient, mitigating the economic damage caused by weather-related disasters; and modernizes roads to accommodate the coming autonomous vehicle revolution.

A compromise on infrastructure faces major obstacles. The first is finding common ground on how to pay for this higher investment, although the outgoing Congress has shown a repeated appetite for taking on more debt. A second challenge is a fundamental disagreement between parties on how to fund infrastructure, with Democrats generally preferring direct spending, and the president and Republicans favoring subsidies to encourage more development. A large-enough bill may have room for both.

Then there is health care. Not only is Obamacare safe for at least the next two years, but three states passed Medicaid expansions, making over 300,000 low-income people eligible for health insurance. And while Medicare for All is a nonstarter under a Republican Senate and president, this Congress could pass bipartisan bills aimed at lowering costs and stabilizing insurance marketplaces.

In particular, a bipartisan Obamacare stabilization package, like the one introduced by senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray in 2017, could get another look. A stabilization bill could include a host of meaningful adjustments, like the reintroduction of cost-sharing payments, more funding for enrollment outreach, and increased availability of low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic plans. A stabilization package like this would expand the number of people covered by health insurance, while also lowering prices and slightly pushing down federal deficits.

Many researchers have pointed out that healthier workers are better workers, but businesses will be most pleased by the reduced health insurance premiums that come with maintaining Obamacare and instituting an associated stabilization package. As health costs can directly eat into profits, businesses will benefit from any bill that reduces the cost of providing insurance to employees.

Partisan division means that American companies shouldn’t bank heavily on progress. But if Congress can find its way to compromise on any of these priorities, businesses will reap the rewards for years.

Benjamin Harris is the executive director of the Kellogg Public-Private Interface at the Kellogg School of Management and was the chief economist to former Vice President Joe Biden.