歐巴馬應速救加州
【邱鴻安】加州因經濟衰退而稅收大減，出現263億元預算赤字，正處於破產邊緣，歐巴馬政府應否出手救援？歐巴馬政府在一個多月前曾經拒絕救援，那時加州的預算危機正在加深；到了7月2日，加州的危機進一步惡化，不得不開始發出借條(IOUs)，以支付32億元的賬單，那麼歐巴馬政府現在應否重新考慮救援的問題？
不少輿論認為，聯邦政府應救加州，基本原因是：加州太大，它的生產總值 (GDP)占了全國的12%，聯邦政府既然要振興經濟，就不能不救加州，如果加州破產，聯邦政府振興經濟的目標也無法達到；聯邦政府既可以救AIG和通用，而加州對全國經濟的影響還超過這兩家公司，為什麼不救加州呢？
除了上述的基本原因，至少還有兩個緊急原因，使歐巴馬政府不得不重新考慮救援加州的問題。
首先是眼前的經濟緊急情況。美國的失業危機正在惡化，過去四個月，全國總共損失160萬個就業機會，自2007年12月經濟開始衰退以來則總共損失了650 萬個就業機會，正在竭力創造就業機會的歐巴馬政府，在過去四個月中，只創造了15萬個就業機會，而歐巴馬的刺激經濟計畫也只以創造350萬個為目標，離開 650萬個甚遠，更何況在經濟真正復甦之前全國還會繼續損失就業機會。加州目前的失業率已破11%(全國是9.5%)，失業人數超過200萬，經濟學家預測，高失業率將維持一兩年。歐巴馬政府要減少失業人數，非救加州不可，如果加州的失業危機得不到改善，全國的就業情況也難以改善。
加州的失業人數增加，又會引發查封屋的浪潮。目前全國四分一的負資產房貸 (underwater mortgages)都在加州，失去工作的屋主就無力償還房貸，失業人數越多，拖欠房貸的人就越多。洛杉磯加大安德森商學院的研究顯示，加州政府大削預算，單在州政府雇員方面，就會導致六萬人被裁，這六萬人將會導致新一輪的查封屋浪潮。歐巴馬政府正竭力挽救房市，因此非救加州不可。
除了經濟上的緊急理由，歐巴馬也有非救低收入階層不可的理由。加州為了平衡預算，不得不大幅削減開支，連窮人也成為開刀的對象，史瓦辛格州長提出的節流措施，包括了取消94萬貧窮兒童的健保、取消50萬貧窮家庭的福利金(CalWORKs)、以及取消超過10萬名貧窮大學生的助學金(Cal Grant)。歐巴馬競選總統時一再重申，上任後將以挽救中下階層為主要的施政目標，給予他們平等的教育和健保機會，現在加州不得不向這個階層開刀，與歐巴馬的目標背道而馳，因此歐巴馬非救加州不可。
獨立研究組織「加州預算計畫」 (CA Budget Project)認為，加州需要聯邦政府直接緊急的救援，因為預算赤字太大，加州不能獨自化解，歐巴馬政府應增撥刺激經濟款項給加州，否則加州的預算危機將會惡化，使更多人失業，讓低收入階層受害，並且拖累全國經濟。
其實，歐巴馬政府在救援加州之餘，還可規定，加州在經濟好轉和稅收穩定後，須償還額外救援的款項，就像獲得救援的銀行和通用公司那樣，另外又可規定，加州在渡過眼前的危機後，必須進行預算改革。如果歐巴馬政府能夠這樣做，既可幫助加州，又不致讓加州拖累全國，何樂而不為？ (世界日報，7.10.2009)
It's simply irresponsible to suggest the continuation of awful social programs at this trying time.
according to circumstances...according to circumstances...
So in your case...or California's case rather, the circumstances are such that if we don't bail out California the consequence will be grave. But Michigan or Illinois may not get it, because the consequences should those states falter will not be grave? And you don't see anything wrong with that? God help us all.
I'd say probably a good thing and I can bore you with why I think so. But then again, I am not an economist. I can not even begin to extrapolate on something as such. All I can do is of course give an opinion.
You sir, dodged the question very well, it is a very sraight forward question;
"should or should we not bail out the next state, if it came begging after California?"
Jariel,
Your question: "After California, should we bail out the next state if it opens its mouth to beg?"
Before I answer, let's look at the previous bailouts in the US. They can be grouped into three categories: (1) To industries, which include railroads, auto's, airlines. (2) To cities. (3) To banks and financial institutions.
I am sure you will notice two things:
NYC has been the one and only city to get bailout. It received $9.4b (in 2008 value) in the form of loans in 1975. The bailout was a total success. Since then, all loans, loan premiums, and fees have been repaid. And NYC has not been looking back ever since.
In contrast, bailouts to banks and financial institutions happened several times. They have received $2035b (also in 2008 value). As most of the bailouts took place recently, we have to wait to see the outcomes.
No other city has followed NYC in the past 34 years, which is quite a long time. Although Philadelphia, Chicago, Phoenix, and Atlanta wrote a joint letter in November 2008 to Secretary Paulsen asking for bailout, their request was denied. Their timing was too coincidental with the bank bailouts.
It is anybody's guess whether other state would follow suit. However, judging by the case of NYC, I would think not.
The consequence of letting California to falter is simply too grave. The US can ill afford it. Besides, California is asking for short-term loans, not grants, to cover liabilities, to meet cashflows, to maintain infrastructures, and to implement economic stimulus plans.
Your question of "what if other states follow California?" is hypothetical. The decision should be made, not based on fear mongering, but based on a rational analysis of "what if we don't come to California's assistance?"
Time and time again, the facts showed us the litters of unrestrained liberalism governance.
Much like your previous argument, if I remember it correctly, about helping out Mexico's economy to stop the illegals from coming over. I also remember telling you if that is the case, we might as well help out every country south of border since not all the illegals come from "JUST" Mexico. Here you are, uttering the same words again, and yet, still you did not answer the question;
Should we bail out the next state if it opens its mouth and beg after we bail out California?
Why does Mr. Chiu often blames the "Republicans" for holding on to their 意識形態 and not willing to compromise with the Democrates? When the truth is, the "Republicans" have been compromising their principles all these years and that was why the Dems were able to get their way. Now the Republicans are drawing the line and it is all their fault all of sudden.
Well, the liberals' way did not work, did it? You had your way for more than 3 decades. Isn't it about time that "YOU"...the Dems, the liberals, let go of your "意識形態" and try the "conservative" way for a change...just to see if it works?
Once again, you've shown that you're a stereo-typical liberal, jealous and envious of others' good fortune.
Well, this is what happens when government steps in and bailing out private sectors: someone will bound to profit from our tax dollars. That's why the Republicans are against bailouts.
They have their cake, and eat it, too.
You and I can eat our heart out.
Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world.
If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it.
If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they’re against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets. Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political sense.
Hey, take your frustration to Obama, don't use it on me! Why don't you ask him why he hasn't bailed out CA already?! Because that will make beggars out of everyone else, get it?! Even Obama understands that.
By the way, not that it bothers me, for someone who uses "匿名" and keeps name calling others like a third-grade, it really shows your level. Come on with a readable post instead of the same old liberal utopian relics. Facts once in a while would be nice.
Despite his promises that his "stimulus" plan would create jobs and stop rising unemployment.
In January, the Obama team said that unemployment would level off at about 8 percent with the passage of a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus plan. The stimulus package was supposed to create 1-3 million new jobs -- but to date even the White House claims only 150,000 jobs have been created or saved by their profligate spending. Let's see, the math on that works out to about $5 million per job.
Wow, spending $5 million dollar to save 1 freaking job.
You people think Obama can save California? then you are out of your freaking mind.