亚色在线观看_亚洲人成a片高清在线观看不卡_亚洲中文无码亚洲人成频_免费在线黄片,69精品视频九九精品视频,美女大黄三级,人人干人人g,全新av网站每日更新播放,亚洲三及片,wwww无码视频,亚洲中文字幕无码一区在线

????上周,，美國(guó)政府問(wèn)責(zé)局（Government Accountability Office）公布的一份綜合調(diào)查顯示,，從教育到國(guó)防的許多計(jì)劃存在重疊和重復(fù)之處，而這些計(jì)劃每年花費(fèi)美國(guó)納稅人數(shù)十億美元,，隨后俄克拉荷馬州參議員湯姆?科伯恩把國(guó)會(huì)成員稱(chēng)為“蠢材”,，甚至“笨蛋”。這份長(zhǎng)達(dá)330多頁(yè)的報(bào)告是一系列報(bào)告的開(kāi)始,，旨在關(guān)注政府減少浪費(fèi),、節(jié)約公共開(kāi)支的可行方式。

????這份報(bào)告出爐之際,，正值美國(guó)極度動(dòng)蕩之時(shí),。今年的聯(lián)邦預(yù)算案遲遲未獲通過(guò)，眼看只有不到兩周的時(shí)間臨時(shí)預(yù)算案就將到期,，共和黨和民主黨議員一直在就削減開(kāi)支的方式問(wèn)題展開(kāi)激烈辯論,。美國(guó)2010年預(yù)算赤字占GDP的比重接近10%，這是動(dòng)搖投資者信心的最重要因素之一,。

????但美國(guó)政府問(wèn)責(zé)局這份報(bào)告揭露的問(wèn)題到底有多嚴(yán)重,？科伯恩表示，報(bào)告結(jié)果應(yīng)該不會(huì)令國(guó)會(huì)議員甚至美國(guó)民眾太感意外,。他一再?gòu)?qiáng)烈要求將此項(xiàng)調(diào)查作為條文的一部分寫(xiě)進(jìn)法律,，去年該法律提高了聯(lián)邦借款限額。此外,，政府問(wèn)責(zé)局還發(fā)現(xiàn),，提高教師素質(zhì)的聯(lián)邦計(jì)劃有82個(gè)，職業(yè)培訓(xùn)和就業(yè)計(jì)劃有47個(gè),，以及可能會(huì)從合并行政,、管理及臨床職能中受益的數(shù)百個(gè)軍用診所。

????這位62歲的共和黨參議員估計(jì)，重復(fù)性支出高達(dá)1000億到2000億美元,，不過(guò)政府問(wèn)責(zé)局并未公布具體數(shù)字,。科伯恩指出,，如果有什么值得說(shuō)的,，那就是調(diào)查結(jié)果只是對(duì)國(guó)會(huì)實(shí)際上有多么低效做出回應(yīng)。他希望該報(bào)告將會(huì)成為大刀闊斧削減開(kāi)支計(jì)劃的一個(gè)模板,。

????我約見(jiàn)了科伯恩,，他是一位醫(yī)學(xué)博士，也是南部浸禮會(huì)執(zhí)事,。我們談到了棘手的政府債務(wù)和赤字問(wèn)題、節(jié)約政府開(kāi)支的措施以及2011年聯(lián)邦預(yù)算,。

????調(diào)查結(jié)果是否讓您感到驚訝,？

????不，那并沒(méi)讓我感到意外,。我相信調(diào)查結(jié)果也不會(huì)讓美國(guó)民眾感到驚訝,，原因在于從我們的所作所為，以及我們已經(jīng)差不多放棄了我們的監(jiān)管責(zé)任,，他們知道我們有多么愚蠢,。

????實(shí)際上，存在的問(wèn)題有兩個(gè)：一是有多少此類(lèi)計(jì)劃超出了美國(guó)憲法列舉的權(quán)利條款,，這才是大問(wèn)題,，因?yàn)槲覀冏屄?lián)邦政府去做那些不該它做的事。二是所有計(jì)劃都出現(xiàn)重復(fù),。美國(guó)政府所做的一切始終都是出于善意,，但當(dāng)我們看到問(wèn)題，我們所做的不是進(jìn)行監(jiān)督并試圖讓已有的這些計(jì)劃發(fā)揮作用,，相反的,，國(guó)會(huì)議員只是再創(chuàng)建一個(gè)計(jì)劃。

????您覺(jué)得最浪費(fèi)的是什么,？

????職業(yè)培訓(xùn)比較浪費(fèi),。我們?cè)谡W(wǎng)站上發(fā)布“員工招聘”信息，然而,，完成此類(lèi)計(jì)劃的那些人卻說(shuō)那就是一個(gè)大笑話(huà),，完全是浪費(fèi)時(shí)間。

????我并不反對(duì)職業(yè)培訓(xùn),。我所希望的職業(yè)培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃是,，確實(shí)能為一些人提供從事某項(xiàng)工作所需的培訓(xùn)。

????為什么我們要有47個(gè)各種各樣的獨(dú)立職業(yè)培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃？誰(shuí)也無(wú)法弄明白這一切,。如果這是一項(xiàng)聯(lián)邦政府職能（我對(duì)此表示懷疑）,，那么任何職業(yè)培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃的設(shè)計(jì)都應(yīng)該做到能夠?qū)ζ湫ЧM(jìn)行評(píng)估。但是,，在這47個(gè)計(jì)劃中,，沒(méi)有一個(gè)計(jì)劃擁有可以評(píng)估其效果的任何指標(biāo)。

????政府問(wèn)責(zé)局的報(bào)告直指諸多軍事計(jì)劃,。兩黨的國(guó)會(huì)議員料將在削減國(guó)防支出問(wèn)題上相當(dāng)猶豫不決,。您有何看法？

????國(guó)防支出應(yīng)該成為討論議題,。我自始至終都這么說(shuō),。我認(rèn)為美國(guó)國(guó)防部至少浪費(fèi)了500億美元。但我們確實(shí)不知道,，因?yàn)闊o(wú)法對(duì)國(guó)防部的任何情況進(jìn)行評(píng)估,，因?yàn)樗麄儧](méi)有審計(jì)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表。他們甚至不確定買(mǎi)的什么,，甚至不確定他們是否已為此買(mǎi)單,。

????過(guò)去兩年我一直在做的工作之一是，實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)美國(guó)國(guó)防部的財(cái)務(wù)控制,。他們做得非常有效,，但他們非常沒(méi)有效率。在6000億美元的預(yù)算中,，僅僅通過(guò)健全的管理實(shí)踐我們就能夠節(jié)約大筆資金,。

????請(qǐng)談?wù)勎磥?lái)措施。您希望從該項(xiàng)調(diào)查中看到什么,？

????首先,，我希望看到國(guó)會(huì)嚴(yán)肅對(duì)待監(jiān)管問(wèn)題。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)非常關(guān)注政府問(wèn)責(zé)局的報(bào)告,，其政府成員也如此,，因?yàn)樗_實(shí)希望進(jìn)行一些合并。所以,，我將與他們以及國(guó)會(huì)成員共同努力,。我們正嘗試以政府問(wèn)責(zé)局報(bào)告中的計(jì)劃重復(fù)為例，來(lái)看看我們?nèi)绾文芄?jié)約部分開(kāi)支,。

????之前,，我已將該報(bào)告的情況告知了奧巴馬總統(tǒng)。他表示這將有助于我們進(jìn)行合并,。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)曾在參議院呆過(guò),，他知道參議院是如何運(yùn)作的,。我們的工作缺乏效率。

????現(xiàn)在距離通過(guò)預(yù)算案的最后期限僅兩周不到,，白宮提出削減60多億美元支出,。在并不知道將從何處著手削減支出的情況下，您認(rèn)為總統(tǒng)應(yīng)該從何處著手,？

????不會(huì)削減預(yù)算,。未來(lái)10年，債務(wù)將會(huì)翻番至26.7萬(wàn)億美元,?？?jī)鼋Y(jié)計(jì)劃節(jié)約的資金甚至不夠支付前三年赤字的利息。他們不夠果敢,，而他們本應(yīng)如此,。

????您對(duì)眾議院共和黨議員要求將今年的預(yù)算削減610億美元有何看法？

????我覺(jué)得這還差得遠(yuǎn),。我們?cè)?個(gè)月內(nèi)的借款金額達(dá)到5800億美元,。所以，我們將要借款5800億美元,，但我們只會(huì)削減610億美元,？對(duì)于認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該立即著手精簡(jiǎn)聯(lián)邦政府的美國(guó)自由與保守兩派民眾,，你覺(jué)得這能達(dá)到他們的預(yù)期嗎,？顯然沒(méi)有。

????這是一個(gè)好的開(kāi)端,，但我們面臨很多重大問(wèn)題,。在過(guò)去的一年半當(dāng)中，我大量學(xué)習(xí)了國(guó)際金融知識(shí),，并閱讀了全世界每位主要經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的著作,，還與美國(guó)財(cái)長(zhǎng)蒂莫西?蓋特納和美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席本?伯南克進(jìn)行了討論。眼下,，我們深陷荊棘之中,。如果中東局勢(shì)失控，并且利率上升,，那么我們將陷入螺旋下降中無(wú)法自拔,。我們也將淪落到和日本一樣的處境。

????如果我們削減開(kāi)支的力度過(guò)大,，那么它是否會(huì)使美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)一步放緩,？民主黨已廣泛援引高盛報(bào)告，稱(chēng)削減610億美元預(yù)算可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致美國(guó)今年第2和第3季度的GDP下降1.5到2個(gè)百分點(diǎn),。

????我不太認(rèn)同這種說(shuō)法,。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),，若聯(lián)邦政府從經(jīng)濟(jì)系統(tǒng)中抽走610億美元，肯定會(huì)對(duì)GDP產(chǎn)生一定的負(fù)面影響,。問(wèn)題是,，不以無(wú)效方式支出那筆資金，而使其發(fā)揮作用的正面影響是什么,？

????經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們會(huì)一致認(rèn)為這會(huì)給GDP帶來(lái)一點(diǎn)壓力,，但對(duì)未來(lái)沒(méi)有信心。

????隨著美國(guó)政府著手進(jìn)行合并,，政府雇員將會(huì)丟掉工作,。在就業(yè)相當(dāng)?shù)兔缘臅r(shí)期，這難道不會(huì)給失業(yè)率帶來(lái)上行壓力嗎,？

????不會(huì),。首先，盡管政府雇員很了不起,，并且總體上做得都不錯(cuò),，但在美國(guó)，他們并未創(chuàng)造出凈經(jīng)濟(jì)利益,。事實(shí)上,，他們創(chuàng)造的凈經(jīng)濟(jì)利益為負(fù)。因此,，如果減少非生產(chǎn)性資本開(kāi)支對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的拖累,，我們將會(huì)看到這筆資金將會(huì)被用在能夠產(chǎn)生經(jīng)濟(jì)效益的方面。

????我們并非是在談?wù)摻夤统汕先f(wàn)的雇員,，我們談?wù)摰氖蔷?jiǎn)的問(wèn)題,。即便涉及多達(dá)幾十萬(wàn)雇員，如果我們因?yàn)榫?jiǎn)了一些計(jì)劃,，明年不再需要額外借貸3000億美元,，我們還是會(huì)給經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來(lái)巨大的好處。

????Last week, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn called members of Congress everything from "stupid" to "jackasses," following the release of a comprehensive study by the Government Accountability Office that found dozens of overlapping and duplicative programs from education to defense that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. The 330-plus page report is the first in a series looking at ways government could reduce waste and save public dollars.

????The report couldn't come at a more tumultuous time. With less than two weeks to cut a deal on this year's federal budget, Republicans and Democrats have been hotly debating ways to reduce spending. The U.S. budget deficit for 2010 was at nearly 10% of GDP and it's one of the biggest factors unnerving investors.

????But how big of a deal is the GAO report? Coburn, who pushed for the study as part of a provision he inserted into a law that raised the federal borrowing limit last year, says the findings shouldn't be much of a surprise to lawmakers or even the American public. The agency found, among other things, 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality, 47 for job training and employment, as well as hundreds of military clinics that could gain from consolidating administrative, management and clinical functions.

????The 62-year-old Republican senator estimates there's between $100 billion to $200 billion in duplicative spending, although the GAO did not report a specific figure. Coburn says if anything, the findings echo just how inefficient Congress really is. He hopes the report will serve as a template for plans to reduce spending in a big way.

????I caught up with Coburn, a medical doctor and ordained Southern Baptist deacon. We talked about the government looming debts and deficits, steps to save the government money and the 2011 federal budget.

????Do the findings surprise you?

????No they didn't surprise me. And I'm sure they're not going to surprise the American people because they know how stupid we are in terms of what we've done and how we've kind of abdicated our responsibility to do oversight.

????There are really two issues: One is how many of these programs are outside the enumerated powers clause of the U.S. Constitution and that's a big problem, because we've got the federal government doing things that it was never intended to do. The second thing is we have all this duplication. What happens in Washington is always well-intentioned but what we do is we see a problem and instead of doing the oversight and seeing how we make the programs that we have work, members of Congress just create another program.

????What do you find most wasteful?

????Job training is wasteful. We put 'help wanted' on our government website and we're getting people who have been through these programs who say they are a total joke and a total waste of time.

????I'm not against job training. I want a job-training program that actually trains somebody to do something that they get a job for.

????Why should we have 47 different separate job training programs? Nobody understands them all. If it's a federal role -- which I question --then any job-training program ought to be designed so that you can measure its effectiveness. None of the 47 has any metrics on it to measure effectiveness.

????The GAO report took particular aim at military programs. Lawmakers from both parties will probably be very hesitant about reducing defense spending. What are your thoughts?

????Defense spending should be on the table. I've said that all along. I think there is at least $50 billion of waste in the US Department of Defense. But we don't really know because nothing in the Defense Department can be measured because they don't have audited financial statements. They're not even sure what they're buying and they're not even sure if they've paid for it.

????One of the things I've been working on for the last two years is to put financial controls in the Defense Department. They're highly effective at what they do but they're highly inefficient. There's a lot of money in that $600 billion budget that we could save just through good management practices.

????Let's talk next steps. What would you like to see come out of this study?

????First of all I'd like to see Congress get serious about oversight. The President is very interested in the GAO report and so is his staff because he does want to do some consolidation. So I'm going to be working with them, as well as members of Congress. We're going to try to take examples of duplication in the GAO report and look at how we can get some savings.

????I told President Obama ahead of time about the report. He said that would help us consolidate things. I mean he's been in the Senate, he knows how the Senate works. We don't work effectively.

????With less than two weeks to cut a deal on the budget, the White House has proposed more than $6 billion in spending cuts. Without knowing where the cuts would be made, what are your thoughts on the President's starting off point?

????There are no budget cuts. The debt doubles over the next 10 years to $26.7 trillion. The savings by freezing won't even pay the interest costs for the first three years of deficits that he's going to run. They weren't bold and they should have been.

????What about House Republicans' call to cut $61 billion from this year's budget?

????I think it's not nearly enough. The amount of money we borrow over that six months is $580 billion. So we're going to borrow $580 billion but we're only going to cut spending by $61 billion? How do you think that fits with the expectations of Americans both liberal and conservative who think we ought to be downsizing the federal government right now? It doesn't fit.

????It's a good start but we have big problems. I've studied a lot of international finance in the last year and a half and I've read the works of every major economist around the world and I've talked to US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I've talked to US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. We're in deep weeds right now. If something collapses in the Middle East and interest rates go up we have the potential to go on a downward spiral that we cannot get out of. We're going to become Japan, too.

????If we cut too much, wouldn't that slow America's economy even further? Democrats have widely cited a Goldman Sachs report that says cutting the budget by $61 billion could reduce GDP by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year.

????I tend not to believe that statement as I look at it. There's no doubt that if you take $61 billion out of the economy from the federal government that you'll have some negative effect on GDP. The question is what's the positive effect that you get from not spending that money in a nonproductive manner and putting that same money to work?

????Economists would agree that you'll have a little pressure on GDP, but there's no confidence out there about the future.

????With consolidation, public employees would lose their jobs. Couldn't that put upward pressure on unemployment at a pretty dismal time?

????No. First of all, government employees, although they're fabulous and they overall do a great job, they produce no net economic benefit in our country. Matter of fact, they produce a net negative economic benefit. So if you take the drag off the economy by nonproductive implementation of capital what you're going to see is that capital is then going to be put to use in something that is productive.

????We're not talking about letting go hundreds and thousands of employees -- we're talking about streamlining things. Even if it were hundreds of thousands of employees, if we're not borrowing another $300 billion additional next year because we streamlined some programs, that has some tremendous benefit to the economy as well.