2018美國(guó)的中期選舉已經(jīng)塵埃落定，此次選舉會(huì)給美國(guó)大大小小的企業(yè)帶來(lái)哪些影響呢？

首先是移民改革或?qū)⑻嵘献h事日程——盡管可能性并不高。很多年來(lái)，美國(guó)企業(yè)一致呼吁政府建立一套更有針對(duì)性的移民制度，允許更多擁有美國(guó)企業(yè)急需技能的外籍人才在美合法務(wù)工。由于國(guó)會(huì)兩院在移民問(wèn)題上始終存在重大分歧，因而改革一直無(wú)法實(shí)施。參議院雖然更加同情企業(yè)的利益，但共和黨把持下的眾議院是不可能給更多移民開(kāi)口子的，參眾兩院也就很難對(duì)此問(wèn)題達(dá)成妥協(xié)。

但是中期選舉過(guò)后，兩院在很多重大議題上已經(jīng)不至于水火不容了。眾議院里的很多民主黨人也希望向在美國(guó)居留多年的非法移民給予公民身份。很多參議員的選民主要集中在科技、醫(yī)療保健和農(nóng)業(yè)等行業(yè)，這些行業(yè)的企業(yè)正迫切需要外籍人才，他們也必須對(duì)這些選民的呼聲做出回應(yīng)。

至于移民改革將采取哪種立法形式，現(xiàn)在還很難預(yù)測(cè)。有一種妥協(xié)方案是：眾議院的民主黨人通過(guò)立法手段為“追夢(mèng)人”（指在孩童時(shí)期即進(jìn)入美國(guó)的外籍未成年人——譯注）等特殊人群賦予公民身份，而共和黨人則同意企業(yè)可以雇傭更多合法移民，同時(shí)總統(tǒng)也能獲得足夠的邊境安全資金，以換取他簽署這項(xiàng)法令。

另一個(gè)方案則是個(gè)宏大的一攬子計(jì)劃，既增加了合法移民的總數(shù)，也將居留標(biāo)準(zhǔn)向有利于美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的移民人才作了調(diào)整，不過(guò)這個(gè)方案要想通過(guò)，無(wú)異于白日做夢(mèng)。2013年美國(guó)參議院曾以68票通過(guò)了類(lèi)似的一份移民改革法案，但它依舊夭折在了眾議院。假如這樣一份法案得以通過(guò)，必將為美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)注入一劑強(qiáng)心針，預(yù)計(jì)未來(lái)20年里將促進(jìn)美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)5.4%，并使生產(chǎn)率提高整整一個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。

一直以來(lái)，基建都是兩黨最容易達(dá)成妥協(xié)的地方，未來(lái)兩年預(yù)計(jì)也將出現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng)。2015年末，美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)在兩黨的共同支持下，通過(guò)了《修復(fù)美國(guó)地面交通法案》（又稱(chēng)《FAST法案》），該法案旨在維持美國(guó)在高速公路上的支出，同時(shí)適度增加交通運(yùn)輸開(kāi)支。《FAST法案》的資金到2021年就將到期，也就是說(shuō)，本屆或下屆國(guó)會(huì)必須要把基建提上議事日程了。

至于大規(guī)模基建項(xiàng)目如何啟動(dòng)，有一種可能性，是由國(guó)會(huì)通過(guò)以一項(xiàng)法案的形式，增加對(duì)鐵路和交通系統(tǒng)的投資，減少勞動(dòng)者的上下班通勤時(shí)間，降低商品進(jìn)市場(chǎng)的成本；增強(qiáng)能源系統(tǒng)抗風(fēng)險(xiǎn)能力，減少自然災(zāi)害帶來(lái)的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失；對(duì)道路進(jìn)行現(xiàn)代化改造，以適應(yīng)即將到來(lái)的自動(dòng)駕駛汽車(chē)革命。

不過(guò)兩黨要想在基建問(wèn)題上達(dá)成妥協(xié)，也得先解決一些重要阻礙。首先要達(dá)成共識(shí)的是，這筆錢(qián)應(yīng)該從哪出——雖然事實(shí)反復(fù)證明，這屆國(guó)會(huì)并不在乎多借一點(diǎn)債。其次，兩黨對(duì)這筆錢(qián)應(yīng)該如何補(bǔ)貼給基建項(xiàng)目，也存在根本分歧。民主黨人普遍傾向于直接支出，而特朗普和共和黨人則傾向于通過(guò)補(bǔ)貼來(lái)鼓勵(lì)基建發(fā)展。不過(guò)只要國(guó)會(huì)的野心足夠大，應(yīng)該是能夠出臺(tái)一項(xiàng)兩種意見(jiàn)都采納的法案的。

再次是醫(yī)療問(wèn)題。奧巴馬醫(yī)改至少未來(lái)兩年還是安全的，另外美國(guó)還有三個(gè)州已批準(zhǔn)擴(kuò)展Medicaid醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助計(jì)劃的覆蓋面，這將使30萬(wàn)低收入人群有資格獲得醫(yī)保。雖說(shuō)在共和黨把持白宮和參議院期間，美國(guó)搞全民醫(yī)保是絕對(duì)不可能的，但如果兩黨都不持異議，本屆國(guó)會(huì)通過(guò)一項(xiàng)旨在降低醫(yī)療成本、穩(wěn)定保險(xiǎn)市場(chǎng)的法案，卻并非沒(méi)有可能性。

特別值得一提的是，有些獲得兩黨支持的奧巴馬醫(yī)改穩(wěn)定方案，比如參議員拉馬爾·亞歷山和帕蒂·默里在2017年提出的方案，很可能會(huì)再次被人提起。穩(wěn)定法案可以寫(xiě)入一系列有意義的調(diào)整，比如重新引入費(fèi)用分?jǐn)傊Ц稒C(jī)制；為擴(kuò)大醫(yī)保范圍而劃撥更多資金；擴(kuò)大低成本、高免賠額的大病計(jì)劃的覆蓋面，等等。這樣的一個(gè)奧巴馬醫(yī)改穩(wěn)定方案能擴(kuò)大醫(yī)保覆蓋人數(shù)，同時(shí)有助于降低醫(yī)保價(jià)格，甚至能略微降低聯(lián)邦赤字。

很多研究人員早已指出，更健康的工人是更好的工人。不過(guò)最令企業(yè)滿(mǎn)意的，還是維持奧巴馬醫(yī)保、追加一攬子穩(wěn)定方案后，帶來(lái)的醫(yī)保自付部分的保費(fèi)下降。由于醫(yī)保費(fèi)用會(huì)直接侵蝕企業(yè)利益，因此只要員工的醫(yī)保成本下降了，企業(yè)就必然會(huì)從中受益。

黨派分爭(zhēng)的存在，意味著美國(guó)企業(yè)不能指望國(guó)會(huì)在任何重大問(wèn)題上取得顯著進(jìn)步。不過(guò)如果國(guó)會(huì)確實(shí)在以上任何一個(gè)重要議題上找到了妥協(xié)的辦法，企業(yè)都會(huì)從中受益很多年。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文作者本杰明·哈里斯是凱洛格管理學(xué)院KPPI項(xiàng)目主任，曾任美國(guó)前副總統(tǒng)拜登的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。

譯者：樸成奎

With the dust mostly settled on the 2018 midterm elections, now is a good time to consider how the outcome will impact businesses across the country.

Although it’s a long shot, immigration reform is a possibility. For years, American businesses have advocated for an immigration system that allows more workers with in-demand skills to legally work in the U.S., but fundamental differences between the chambers made agreement effectively impossible. A Republican House that fundamentally opposed any increases in immigration was never going to compromise with the Senate, which was more sympathetic to business interests.

But after the midterms, the priorities of both chambers are no longer incompatible. Many House Democrats are eager to provide legal paths to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, while a swath of senators want to be responsive to their business-minded constituents who desperately need workers in key areas like tech, health care, and agriculture.

It’s difficult to predict exactly what form legislation would take. One version is a compromise whereby House Democrats get legal paths to citizenship for populations like Dreamers, Republicans get concessions for businesses to hire more legal immigrants, and the president gets just enough border security funding to secure his signature.

Another version—which many consider a pipe dream—is a more sweeping package that both boosts the total number of legal immigrants and shifts the criteria for residency toward immigrants who would benefit the U.S. economy. Precedent for such a bill can be found in a 2013 package which sailed through the Senate with 68 votes, but never cleared the House. Had it passed, the bill would have been a shot in the arm for the American economy, boosting GDP by 5.4% and raising productivity by a full percentage point over two decades.

Infrastructure has long been fertile ground for bipartisan compromise and could gain traction in the next two years. In late 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act with bipartisan support—maintaining spending for our nation’s highways and providing a modest boost to transit spending. FAST Act funding expires in 2021, which means this Congress or the next will have to take it up.

One possibility is a bill that boosts our nation’s investment in rail and transit systems, cutting down on the time workers spend commuting and the costs of getting goods to market; makes our energy systems more resilient, mitigating the economic damage caused by weather-related disasters; and modernizes roads to accommodate the coming autonomous vehicle revolution.

A compromise on infrastructure faces major obstacles. The first is finding common ground on how to pay for this higher investment, although the outgoing Congress has shown a repeated appetite for taking on more debt. A second challenge is a fundamental disagreement between parties on how to fund infrastructure, with Democrats generally preferring direct spending, and the president and Republicans favoring subsidies to encourage more development. A large-enough bill may have room for both.

Then there is health care. Not only is Obamacare safe for at least the next two years, but three states passed Medicaid expansions, making over 300,000 low-income people eligible for health insurance. And while Medicare for All is a nonstarter under a Republican Senate and president, this Congress could pass bipartisan bills aimed at lowering costs and stabilizing insurance marketplaces.

In particular, a bipartisan Obamacare stabilization package, like the one introduced by senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray in 2017, could get another look. A stabilization bill could include a host of meaningful adjustments, like the reintroduction of cost-sharing payments, more funding for enrollment outreach, and increased availability of low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic plans. A stabilization package like this would expand the number of people covered by health insurance, while also lowering prices and slightly pushing down federal deficits.

Many researchers have pointed out that healthier workers are better workers, but businesses will be most pleased by the reduced health insurance premiums that come with maintaining Obamacare and instituting an associated stabilization package. As health costs can directly eat into profits, businesses will benefit from any bill that reduces the cost of providing insurance to employees.

Partisan division means that American companies shouldn’t bank heavily on progress. But if Congress can find its way to compromise on any of these priorities, businesses will reap the rewards for years.

Benjamin Harris is the executive director of the Kellogg Public-Private Interface at the Kellogg School of Management and was the chief economist to former Vice President Joe Biden.