拜登政府公布的大規(guī)?;A(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃將造福哪些基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施領(lǐng)域?
一些共和黨批評(píng)人士認(rèn)為幾乎沒有,?!爸挥屑s5%到7%關(guān)乎真正意義上的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,即道路,、橋梁和港口,。”特朗普總統(tǒng)管理和預(yù)算辦公室(Office of Management and Budget)主任羅素?沃特最近表示,。真的是這樣嗎,?
與任何一次大規(guī)模立法一樣,拜登政府新啟動(dòng)的2.2萬(wàn)億美元基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)計(jì)劃也有一些令人吃驚之處,,即借此機(jī)會(huì)制定的許多無(wú)關(guān)條款,。但這些條款并不像是巨輪上附著的藤壺。有些條款讓人驚訝不已,。
值得一提的是,,雖然媒體稱這一舉措為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃,但拜登政府的說(shuō)法卻不同,。拜登政府官方稱之為《美國(guó)就業(yè)計(jì)劃》,,而且該計(jì)劃一直主張要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造或保護(hù)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),尤其是工會(huì)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),。但拜登政府對(duì)該計(jì)劃的詳細(xì)說(shuō)明(一份近12,000字的情況說(shuō)明書)從一開始就明顯打著基建投資的幌子,。仔細(xì)閱讀該計(jì)劃,就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)它真正涉及多少基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施領(lǐng)域,。
人們大多認(rèn)為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)就是建設(shè)或改善橋梁,、高速公路、道路,、港口,、水道和機(jī)場(chǎng),該計(jì)劃為此類基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)投入1570億美元,,僅占該計(jì)劃總預(yù)算成本的7%,。沃特所指的就是此類基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)。但基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)還可適度包括升級(jí)廢水和飲用水系統(tǒng),、全國(guó)全面普及高速寬帶互聯(lián)網(wǎng),、建設(shè)現(xiàn)代化電網(wǎng)以及提升基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施彈性,。因此,基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)總投入達(dá)5180億美元,,占該計(jì)劃總預(yù)算成本的24%,。
此外,部分預(yù)算將用于建造“上層結(jié)構(gòu)”——而非基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,,是使用基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的設(shè)施,。例如,該計(jì)劃要求建造,、維護(hù)或改造200多萬(wàn)套住房,。另一項(xiàng)條款將針對(duì)生產(chǎn)和購(gòu)買美國(guó)制造電動(dòng)汽車制定補(bǔ)貼和激勵(lì)計(jì)劃,以及為州政府,、地方政府和私營(yíng)單位制定補(bǔ)貼和激勵(lì)計(jì)劃,,推動(dòng)其建立電動(dòng)汽車(EV)充電站。
此外,,該計(jì)劃的某些內(nèi)容無(wú)論是否符合政策目標(biāo),,都與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施無(wú)任何關(guān)系。某大型項(xiàng)目的預(yù)算為4000億美元,,用于創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),,提高護(hù)工工資。另一大型項(xiàng)目的預(yù)算為3000億美元,,用于有針對(duì)性地援助各行各業(yè)的制造商和小企業(yè),,無(wú)論其與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是否有任何關(guān)聯(lián)。還有一個(gè)項(xiàng)目一經(jīng)提出就引發(fā)了爭(zhēng)議,,即投入1800億美元資助未來(lái)技術(shù)和研發(fā)產(chǎn)業(yè),,包括給國(guó)家科學(xué)基金會(huì)(National Science Foundation)撥款500億美元,用于建立一個(gè)“技術(shù)理事會(huì)”——政府資助型基礎(chǔ)研究支持者對(duì)此大加贊賞,,但批評(píng)人士則對(duì)政府努力扶優(yōu)扶強(qiáng)感到厭惡,。該項(xiàng)目引發(fā)辯論完全合情合理,因?yàn)樗c人們普遍認(rèn)知的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施毫無(wú)關(guān)系,。
該計(jì)劃的其他非基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施內(nèi)容是對(duì)法律作出重大變革,,但無(wú)任何預(yù)算。最重要的是,,該計(jì)劃將大幅增加企業(yè)所得稅,,將基本稅率從21%提高到28%,,同時(shí)削減稅收優(yōu)惠,。此外,情況說(shuō)明書還寫道,,該計(jì)劃“會(huì)解決性別不平等問題”,,但并未說(shuō)明具體舉措,。該計(jì)劃基本上要求,所有政府項(xiàng)目均須使用由懸掛美國(guó)國(guó)旗且由美籍船員操縱的船只運(yùn)送的美國(guó)制造的產(chǎn)品,。
還有一些舉措雖不足為奇,,但卻常被公眾忽視。例如,,2月公布的19億美元新冠疫情救助法案包含幾項(xiàng)不受關(guān)注的與疫情無(wú)關(guān)的條款,,這些條款改變了跨國(guó)公司分配利息成本的方式,并幫助多雇主養(yǎng)老金計(jì)劃擺脫困境,;這兩項(xiàng)變化已經(jīng)醞釀多年,,與此次疫情無(wú)任何關(guān)系。
但與新冠疫情救助法案不同,,該項(xiàng)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃并不急于落實(shí),,因此千萬(wàn)別指望很快有任何舉措會(huì)被寫入法律。該計(jì)劃尚未轉(zhuǎn)為法案,,因此眾議院和參議院無(wú)法對(duì)此進(jìn)行辯論,,最終形成的法案將會(huì)有成百上千頁(yè)。今年可能會(huì)對(duì)此進(jìn)行最終投票表決,。表決前,,可能會(huì)刪減一些無(wú)關(guān)條款,也可能會(huì)添加一些其他條款,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:郝秀
審校:汪皓
拜登政府公布的大規(guī)?;A(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃將造福哪些基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施領(lǐng)域?
一些共和黨批評(píng)人士認(rèn)為幾乎沒有,?!爸挥屑s5%到7%關(guān)乎真正意義上的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,即道路,、橋梁和港口,。”特朗普總統(tǒng)管理和預(yù)算辦公室(Office of Management and Budget)主任羅素?沃特最近表示,。真的是這樣嗎,?
與任何一次大規(guī)模立法一樣,拜登政府新啟動(dòng)的2.2萬(wàn)億美元基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)計(jì)劃也有一些令人吃驚之處,,即借此機(jī)會(huì)制定的許多無(wú)關(guān)條款,。但這些條款并不像是巨輪上附著的藤壺。有些條款讓人驚訝不已,。
值得一提的是,,雖然媒體稱這一舉措為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃,但拜登政府的說(shuō)法卻不同,。拜登政府官方稱之為《美國(guó)就業(yè)計(jì)劃》,,而且該計(jì)劃一直主張要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造或保護(hù)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),,尤其是工會(huì)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。但拜登政府對(duì)該計(jì)劃的詳細(xì)說(shuō)明(一份近12,000字的情況說(shuō)明書)從一開始就明顯打著基建投資的幌子,。仔細(xì)閱讀該計(jì)劃,,就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)它真正涉及多少基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施領(lǐng)域。
人們大多認(rèn)為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)就是建設(shè)或改善橋梁,、高速公路,、道路、港口,、水道和機(jī)場(chǎng),,該計(jì)劃為此類基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)投入1570億美元,僅占該計(jì)劃總預(yù)算成本的7%,。沃特所指的就是此類基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè),。但基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)還可適度包括升級(jí)廢水和飲用水系統(tǒng)、全國(guó)全面普及高速寬帶互聯(lián)網(wǎng),、建設(shè)現(xiàn)代化電網(wǎng)以及提升基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施彈性,。因此,基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)總投入達(dá)5180億美元,,占該計(jì)劃總預(yù)算成本的24%,。
此外,部分預(yù)算將用于建造“上層結(jié)構(gòu)”——而非基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,,是使用基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的設(shè)施,。例如,該計(jì)劃要求建造,、維護(hù)或改造200多萬(wàn)套住房,。另一項(xiàng)條款將針對(duì)生產(chǎn)和購(gòu)買美國(guó)制造電動(dòng)汽車制定補(bǔ)貼和激勵(lì)計(jì)劃,以及為州政府,、地方政府和私營(yíng)單位制定補(bǔ)貼和激勵(lì)計(jì)劃,,推動(dòng)其建立電動(dòng)汽車(EV)充電站。
此外,,該計(jì)劃的某些內(nèi)容無(wú)論是否符合政策目標(biāo),,都與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施無(wú)任何關(guān)系。某大型項(xiàng)目的預(yù)算為4000億美元,,用于創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),,提高護(hù)工工資。另一大型項(xiàng)目的預(yù)算為3000億美元,,用于有針對(duì)性地援助各行各業(yè)的制造商和小企業(yè),,無(wú)論其與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是否有任何關(guān)聯(lián)。還有一個(gè)項(xiàng)目一經(jīng)提出就引發(fā)了爭(zhēng)議,即投入1800億美元資助未來(lái)技術(shù)和研發(fā)產(chǎn)業(yè),,包括給國(guó)家科學(xué)基金會(huì)(National Science Foundation)撥款500億美元,用于建立一個(gè)“技術(shù)理事會(huì)”——政府資助型基礎(chǔ)研究支持者對(duì)此大加贊賞,,但批評(píng)人士則對(duì)政府努力扶優(yōu)扶強(qiáng)感到厭惡,。該項(xiàng)目引發(fā)辯論完全合情合理,因?yàn)樗c人們普遍認(rèn)知的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施毫無(wú)關(guān)系,。
該計(jì)劃的其他非基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施內(nèi)容是對(duì)法律作出重大變革,,但無(wú)任何預(yù)算。最重要的是,,該計(jì)劃將大幅增加企業(yè)所得稅,,將基本稅率從21%提高到28%,同時(shí)削減稅收優(yōu)惠,。此外,,情況說(shuō)明書還寫道,該計(jì)劃“會(huì)解決性別不平等問題”,,但并未說(shuō)明具體舉措,。該計(jì)劃基本上要求,所有政府項(xiàng)目均須使用由懸掛美國(guó)國(guó)旗且由美籍船員操縱的船只運(yùn)送的美國(guó)制造的產(chǎn)品,。
還有一些舉措雖不足為奇,,但卻常被公眾忽視。例如,,2月公布的19億美元新冠疫情救助法案包含幾項(xiàng)不受關(guān)注的與疫情無(wú)關(guān)的條款,,這些條款改變了跨國(guó)公司分配利息成本的方式,并幫助多雇主養(yǎng)老金計(jì)劃擺脫困境,;這兩項(xiàng)變化已經(jīng)醞釀多年,,與此次疫情無(wú)任何關(guān)系。
但與新冠疫情救助法案不同,,該項(xiàng)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施計(jì)劃并不急于落實(shí),,因此千萬(wàn)別指望很快有任何舉措會(huì)被寫入法律。該計(jì)劃尚未轉(zhuǎn)為法案,,因此眾議院和參議院無(wú)法對(duì)此進(jìn)行辯論,,最終形成的法案將會(huì)有成百上千頁(yè)。今年可能會(huì)對(duì)此進(jìn)行最終投票表決,。表決前,,可能會(huì)刪減一些無(wú)關(guān)條款,也可能會(huì)添加一些其他條款,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:郝秀
審校:汪皓
How much of the Biden administration’s big infrastructure plan is about infrastructure?
Some Republican critics contend that hardly any of it is. “Only about 5% to 7% of it is roads and bridges and ports and things that you I would say is real infrastructure,” Russell Vought, President Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, said recently. Is he right?
Like all humongous-scale legislative efforts, the Biden administration’s new $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan contains surprises—unrelated provisions that are hitching a ride on a juggernaut. In this case they’re not like barnacles on a giant ship. Some of these surprises are surprisingly large.
It’s worth remembering that while the media call the initiative an infrastructure plan, the Biden administration doesn’t. Officially, it’s the American Jobs Plan, and it consistently proposes creating or protecting jobs, especially union jobs. But the administration’s fullest description of the plan, a nearly 12,000-word fact sheet, leans heavily on infrastructure from the beginning. A close reading reveals just how much is really there.
Infrastructure as many people think of it—construction or improvement of bridges, highways, roads, ports, waterways, and airports—accounts for only $157 billion, or 7%, of the plan’s estimated cost. That’s apparently what Vought was referring to. The definition of infrastructure can reasonably be expanded to include upgrading wastewater and drinking water systems, expanding high-speed broadband Internet service to 100% of the nation, modernizing the electric grid, and improving infrastructure resilience. That brings the total to $518 billion, or 24% of the plan’s total cost.
Some of the plan’s remaining budget would be spent on what might be called “suprastructure”—not infrastructure, but rather things that use infrastructure. For example, the plan calls for building, preserving, or retrofitting more than 2 million homes. Another provision would subsidize and incentivize the production and purchase of American-made electric vehicles plus the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by state and local governments and private companies.
And then there are the plan’s elements that may or may not be worthy policy objectives but don’t claim any relationship to infrastructure. One of the plan’s largest programs, budgeted at $400 billion, would create jobs and raise pay for home care workers. Another of the most expensive programs, at $300 billion, would give targeted aid to manufacturers and small businesses across industries, regardless of any infrastructure connection. A program that immediately sparked controversy would budget $180 billion for public investment in technology and research and development including $50 billion for the National Science Foundation to establish a “technology directorate”—applauded by proponents of government-funded basic research, abhorred by critics of government efforts to pick winners. It’s a legitimate debate; it isn’t about infrastructure as that term is widely understood.
Other non-infrastructure elements of the plan would change laws in important ways without spending money. Most significantly, the plan would heavily increase corporate taxes, raising the basic tax rate from 21% to 28% while also reducing or eliminating deductions. In addition, the fact sheet says the plan “tackles inequities based on gender,” though it doesn’t say how. It would mostly require that all government projects use American-made goods that are shipped on U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels.
The grab bag of initiatives is not surprising, though it’s often overlooked by the general public. The $1.9-billion COVID-19 relief bill in February contained several below-the-radar COVID-free provisions—changing the way multinationals allocate interest costs and bailing out multi-employer pension plans, for example; two changes that had been in the works for years and had nothing to do with the pandemic.
But unlike the pandemic bill, the infrastructure plan doesn’t demand urgent action, so don’t expect any of it to become law soon. It hasn’t yet been transformed into a bill that the House and Senate can debate, and that eventual bill will be hundreds or thousands of pages. Getting to an up-or-down vote may take the rest of the year. Along the way it’s possible that some of the off-topic provisions could be pruned—and just as likely that others will be added.