今天，版主想讓大家看看不同的觀察，這篇文章是由美國著名的保守派作家，同時也是紐約時報專欄作家的Ross Douthat，於今天發表的專欄，請大家看一下這篇題為「A Time for Choosing，選擇時刻」的文章；

OVER the 40 years preceding Barack Obama’s first term in office, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike, the federal government claimed, on average, about 18 percent of America’s gross domestic product in taxes every year and spent slightly under 21 percent.

在歐巴馬第一次入主白宮之前的40年中，無論是民主黨或共和黨執政，美國聯邦政府的稅收約佔GDP的18%，而支出則將近GDP的21%。

This equilibrium was always going to be threatened by the retirement of the baby boomers. But the financial crash and the Great Recession upset it sooner than anyone expected. As the economy cratered, so did tax revenue, dropping below 15 percent of G.D.P. in 2009. Government spending, meanwhile, climbed to 25 percent of G.D.P., as the president’s stimulus bill tried to help fill the gap left by the private sector’s collapse.

儘管大家都認為這樣的平衡將被戰後嬰兒潮世代的退休所打破，但財政危機及大蕭條卻讓失衡更快出現，遠遠早於任何人的預期。經濟受創的結果，使得政府稅收同樣遭受衝擊。2009年，聯邦政府稅收降到GDP的15%以下，但歐巴馬試圖用刺激經濟法案來填補私營企業倒閉的大洞，聯邦政府的支出上升至GDP的25%

This gulf between taxes and spending has closed, somewhat, in the three years since, thanks to the limping recovery and some halting attempts at deficit reduction in Washington. But a new equilibrium will take many more years of growth and many more painful policy decisions to achieve.

從那時起至今的三年間，經濟情況遲緩的恢復，加以華府斷續實施的削減赤字計畫，稅收及政府支出的缺口較為縮小，但要達到新的平衡，還需要多年的經濟成長，與諸多艱困的政策抉擇，才有可能實現。

The choice voters face on Tuesday will not determine exactly where this new equilibrium ends up. An Obama second term and a Romney first term would both feature a certain amount of can-kicking and a certain amount of compromise. A President Obama would probably accede to further spending cuts; a President Romney would likely accept the need for slightly higher tax revenue. Both men would continue to run large deficits as long as the recovery seemed weak.

選民在本周二的抉擇，將不會決定之前所提到的新平衡，到底會落於何方。無論是歐巴馬連任或是羅姆尼入主白宮，都將面臨一定程度的樽節開支及妥協。若歐巴馬連任可能會進一步削減政府支出，而若是羅姆尼當選也可能會微幅增稅。無論誰當選，在經濟復甦力道緩慢之時，兩人都將面臨財政的巨額赤字。

But this year’s choice will make a long-term difference nonetheless. A vote for President Obama is a vote for a future where spending stabilizes well above its 40-year average, and where tax revenue gradually rises — thanks to the leverage afforded the president by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts — to pay for Social Security, Medicare, the president’ health care law and more.

盡管如此，選民這次的抉擇，長期而言將有影響。如果投歐巴馬，表示選民決定聯邦政府支出將穩定的高於過去40年的平均水準。還好小布希的減稅政策已經到期，聯邦政府才有多餘的稅收來支付社會安全、聯邦醫療保險、總統提出的健保法案及其他更多的支出。

A vote for Romney, on the other hand, is a vote for a future in which we at least try to make the fiscal adjustments necessary to keep taxing and spending at roughly the same rate as under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

而投羅姆尼，選民大概可以預期，未來聯邦政府的支出與稅收，大概會試著約略維持在雷根、柯林頓及小布希政府時期的平衡水準。

As I’ve written before, there are good reasons that a nonideological voter might be undecided between these two futures. The conservative vision requires making structural changes to popular programs, and asking the middle class to accept further creative destruction in an age of insecurity. The last 50 years of Western European life, meanwhile, suggest that the higher-tax, higher-spending equilibrium favored by liberals can be comfortable rather than dystopian.

我之前曾經提到，沒有強烈政黨傾向的選民，很有可能在這兩種情況間猶疑不決。保守派認為，某些受歡迎的政策將需要結構性變革，而在這樣無安全感的時代下，中產階級將被迫面對更艱辛的挑戰。而自由派則認為過去50年西歐國家所實施的高稅率與高政府支出的財政平衡方式更符合理想。

But there’s a strong rebuttal to the case for accepting a bigger-government new normal.

但是，這樣常態性的大政府主義，卻存在著反對的聲浪

The European model of social democracy has its virtues, but it has always depended on the wealth created by American laissez-faire. As a recent economic paper entitled “Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians?” points out, it’s easier for smaller countries to afford a more “cuddly” form of capitalism if big countries like the United States are driving global economic growth. And the price of a permanently larger government — in growth lost, private-sector jobs left uncreated, breakthroughs forgone — is much higher for a country of our size and influence than it is for a Sweden or a France.

歐洲的社會主義式民主有其優點，但這樣的民主卻建立在美國的自由主義所創造的財富上。最近有一篇題為「我們能不能更像北歐人？」的經濟論文指出，若是像美國一樣的大國能推動全球經濟的成長，則小國會比較容易建立資本主義的經濟模式。而持續實施大政府主義的代價，則反映在成長動能的消失、私營企業的工作機會減少，以及突破的瓶頸。比起法國或瑞典，美國實行大政府主義的代價顯然要比他們大得多。

It’s one thing for a young, fast-growing nation — like the America of the 1960s — to embrace a permanently larger public sector. It’s quite another for a graying society with a stagnant economy and a sinking birthrate to do the same. There’s a risk of a vicious cycle, in which a shrinking working-age population bears the burden of growing old-age entitlements, which in turn discourages precisely the kind of risk-taking and family formation required to keep the system solvent.

大政府主義若是在一個年輕而快速成長的國家，比如說60年代的美國是可行的，但若在一個老化、經濟成長停滯、出生率降低的社會，當能負擔開銷的適齡工作人口減少，需要福利供養的老化人口增加，大政府主義反而會導致惡性循環。

 Already our government redistributes too much from the young to the old, from working families to retirees, from productive entrepreneurs to protected clients. To accede to this government’s permanent expansion is to walk, with eyes wide open, into the kind of economic and demographic trap that has ensnared the weaker economies of Europe today.

如今我們的政府已經讓年輕人負擔過多的老年人口開銷，能工作的人對退休人口的負擔也越重，也拿有生產力的企業家的產出來補貼某些特定企業。若是放任政府無限制的擴大支出，我們等於眼睜睜地走入經濟學及人口學的困境泥淖中，就像現在歐洲各國的委靡經濟情況一樣。

President Obama did not single-handedly put us on this path. But he has kept us on it, accelerated our progress down it, and campaigned for re-election as though taking this course had no downsides whatsoever. He’s the candidate of the Medicare status quo in a country facing an entitlement crunch, of government bailouts in an economy with a crony capitalism problem, and of contraceptive mandates in a society with a birth dearth.

我們會走上這條路並非歐巴馬一人之功，但歐巴馬讓我們加速的朝這個方向前進，現在他還要競選連任，好像這樣的方向無論如何對我們全然無害。歐巴馬在我們社福架構極其脆弱時主張擴大醫療保險，用政府補助來挽救裙帶式的資本主義，雖然出生率極低，但他卻支持避孕權利。

For an incumbent president facing a mistrusted opposition party, this may prove a formula for a narrow electoral victory. But for the country that might vote to re-elect him, it risks four more years of drift, stagnation and decline.

歐巴馬作為一個現任者，面對不信任他的反對黨，依照以往的經驗他還是可能以些微差距獲勝。但對我們的國家而言，若是讓歐巴馬連任，那麼今後四年我們也將面臨混亂，停滯及衰退的風險。

不知道大家對這篇專欄有何想法？台灣近年來也面對很多質疑大政府主義的聲浪，但是台灣由於稅率低，人民要求的福利又多，所以跟大政府根本扯不上邊。如果要享受過人的福利，就要付出比別人多的代價。而不是像現在的台灣一樣，繳稅人人嫌多，福利人人嫌少。不是嗎？