刺激方案驾到，赤字削减让道

    债务上限和联邦支出削减议题甚嚣尘上，经济刺激计划似乎已离我们远去。果真如此吗？敝人有一种很强烈的预感，这个夏末，两党将再次出台税收和开支计划，藉此拉动经济增长。不妨把它叫做刺激计划4.0版吧。

    虽然这个一揽子方案将使削减赤字的努力成为泡影，但这并不妨碍其通过立法表决。随着经济形势每况愈下，防止经济二次探底的重担就落在了白宫和国会的肩上。刚刚结束了第二轮量化宽松政策的美联储（Fed）似乎已经高挂免战牌。不久之后，两党的现任高层就将开始为明年的大选坐立不安。赢得选举将成为头等大事，联邦政府规模的争论则退居次席，这也意味着减税的规模将扩大，政府的开支将增加。

    白宫目前已经动了延长削减工资税的念头，并将受益对象扩大至雇主，这原本只是个临时决议。这个预计将耗费高达2，000亿美元的议案对共和党的公司阵营具有很大的吸引力，并有可能被拿来用于争取提升债务上限的杀手锏。如果此次流产，该议案将于九月国会会期时卷土重来。届时，与该议案结伴同行的还有失业帮扶方案，例如（再次）延长失业救济，（再次）增加资本投资的税收抵免以及为雇佣员工的企业发放补助。没有一个是省油的灯。

    这必然引起预算掌权人的满腹牢骚，而且刺激计划的反对者们也会大谈经济的疲软正是凯恩斯主义无用的最好证明。要我说的话：就当没听见。要不是政府出面填补私营领域的开支漏洞，那么萧条还将延续很长一段时间，失业率也将更高。如果银行，家庭，消费者和当地政府仍在为财政而发愁，经济很可能重新陷入衰退。

    信不信由你。英国就是一个最好的例子。英国政府出台了财政紧缩措施，旨在于2015年前消除赤字。这一措施几乎将经济拖累至停滞边缘。如果国会真的打算削减开支增加收入，美国将重蹈英国的覆辙。

    谢天谢地，美国对“稳健的财政”的尊崇只有三分钟的热度。一旦经济徘徊不前，这种尊崇就宛如盛夏阵雨过后的积水，很快就烟消云散了。2008年2月，布什政府出台了刺激计划1.0版本，涉及1，500亿美元的税收减免和额外花销。次年，2009年《美国恢复和再投资法案》（American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009）出台，开支7，870亿美元。去年12月，奥巴马总统(President Obama)和国会共和党议员同意延长2001年由布什政府实施的无视预算所得税削减议案，并同意将雇员工资税税率下调两个百分点。尽管这个决议并没有贴上官方刺激计划的标签，但是政府已为此向经济注资1，500亿美元，预算赤字也因此进一步增加。

    据称现在情况变了：两党都声称将在接下来的几年削减4万亿美元的赤字。这点我根本无法相信。在白宫提交的预算议案中，大部分赤字问题的解决集中在2020至2024年，犹如酒鬼戒酒，虽然态度很坚决，但目标却是8年以后在戒酒。国会议员保尔•莱恩的计划是：可由自身消化的税收削减应结合相应开支的大规模削减。这是典型的共和党巫术经济的把戏。

    美国政治系统似乎对赤字有慢性偏见症。没有债券市场突然崩盘这剂猛药，这个病很难好。长期来看，无力平衡收支将成为国家偿付能力的大敌。然而现在，更多一些“不负责任”的刺激性支出才是当前经济最为需要的偏方。

    约翰•卡斯迪是《财富》（Fortune）杂志撰稿人，也是《纽约客》（New Yorker）杂志的正式撰稿人。

    With all the talk of debt ceilings and federal spending cuts, you might think that the era of stimulus programs was behind us. Think again. I strongly suspect that by the end of the summer both parties will be putting together yet another tax and spending bill designed to get the economy going. Call it Stimulus 4.0.

    Such a package will fly in the face of efforts to cut the deficit, but that won't prevent it from being enacted. With the economic picture darkening daily, the burden of preventing another slump is falling on the White House and Congress. The Fed, which has just finished its second dose of quantitative easing, seems determined to sit on its hands. Before long, incumbents in both parties will start to panic about next year's election. Debates about the size of the federal government will take a back seat to getting reelected, and the result will be more tax cuts and spending increases.

    The White House is already floating the idea of rolling over this year's payroll tax cut, which was supposed to be temporary, and extending it to employers. The proposal, which would cost up to $200 billion, appeals to the Republicans' corporate base, and it could even be included in a last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling. If that doesn't happen, the idea will be resurrected in September, when Congress returns to session and when it will be accompanied by other costly suggestions to help the jobless, such as extending unemployment benefits (again), boosting tax credits for capital investments (again), and providing firms with subsidies for hiring people.

    Fiscal hawks will complain, and opponents of stimulus programs will say the economy's weakness demonstrates the futility of Keynesian policies. I say: Let 'em whine. If the government hadn't stepped in to offset a collapse in private sector spending, the Great Recession would have lasted much longer than it did, and the unemployment rate would be even higher. With banks, householders, consumers, and local governments still rebuilding their finances, the economy could easily fall back into a recession.

    You don't believe me? Look at Britain, where the economy has slowed almost to a stop because of an austerity program designed to balance the budget by 2015. If Congress was really serious about slashing spending and raising revenue, we would be on the same path as the Brits.

    In this country, thankfully, the commitment to "sound finance" is about as durable as the residue of a rain shower on a hot day. Whenever the economy stutters, it evaporates. In February 2008 the Bush administration pushed through Stimulus 1.0, a $150 billion package of tax cuts and additional spending. A year later came the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, at $787 billion. Last December, President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to extend the budget-busting income tax cuts Bush introduced in 2001 and to reduce by 2 percentage points the employee's portion of the payroll tax. That wasn't officially labeled a third stimulus package, but it injected another $150 billion into the economy and boosted the deficit.

    Supposedly, things have changed: Both parties say they would cut the deficit by $4 trillion in the coming years. I don't believe a word of it. In the White House's budget proposal, much of the deficit reduction is slated for 2020 to 2024, which is a bit like an alcoholic promising to give up drinking eight years hence. Congressman Paul Ryan's plan is another Republican exercise in voodoo economics: big tax cuts that are supposed to pay for themselves combined with hefty but unspecified cuts in spending programs.

    For good or ill, the American political system has a chronic deficit bias. Absent a sudden collapse in the bond market, it isn't going away. Over the long term, our inability to match spending to revenue presents serious challenges to the country's solvency. For now, though, more "irresponsible" stimulus spending happens to be precisely what the economy needs.

    --John Cassidy is a Fortune contributor and a New Yorker staff writer.