拜登政府公布的大規模基礎設施計劃將造福哪些基礎設施領域?
一些共和黨批評人士認為幾乎沒有。“只有約5%到7%關乎真正意義上的基礎設施,即道路、橋梁和港口。”特朗普總統管理和預算辦公室(Office of Management and Budget)主任羅素?沃特最近表示。真的是這樣嗎?
與任何一次大規模立法一樣,拜登政府新啟動的2.2萬億美元基礎設施建設計劃也有一些令人吃驚之處,即借此機會制定的許多無關條款。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設施計劃,但拜登政府的說法卻不同。拜登政府官方稱之為《美國就業計劃》,而且該計劃一直主張要創造或保護就業機會,尤其是工會就業機會。但拜登政府對該計劃的詳細說明(一份近12,000字的情況說明書)從一開始就明顯打著基建投資的幌子。仔細閱讀該計劃,就會發現它真正涉及多少基礎設施領域。
人們大多認為基礎設施建設就是建設或改善橋梁、高速公路、道路、港口、水道和機場,該計劃為此類基礎設施建設投入1570億美元,僅占該計劃總預算成本的7%。沃特所指的就是此類基礎設施建設。但基礎設施建設還可適度包括升級廢水和飲用水系統、全國全面普及高速寬帶互聯網、建設現代化電網以及提升基礎設施彈性。因此,基礎設施建設總投入達5180億美元,占該計劃總預算成本的24%。
此外,部分預算將用于建造“上層結構”——而非基礎設施,是使用基礎設施的設施。例如,該計劃要求建造、維護或改造200多萬套住房。另一項條款將針對生產和購買美國制造電動汽車制定補貼和激勵計劃,以及為州政府、地方政府和私營單位制定補貼和激勵計劃,推動其建立電動汽車(EV)充電站。
此外,該計劃的某些內容無論是否符合政策目標,都與基礎設施無任何關系。某大型項目的預算為4000億美元,用于創造就業機會,提高護工工資。另一大型項目的預算為3000億美元,用于有針對性地援助各行各業的制造商和小企業,無論其與基礎設施是否有任何關聯。還有一個項目一經提出就引發了爭議,即投入1800億美元資助未來技術和研發產業,包括給國家科學基金會(National Science Foundation)撥款500億美元,用于建立一個“技術理事會”——政府資助型基礎研究支持者對此大加贊賞,但批評人士則對政府努力扶優扶強感到厭惡。該項目引發辯論完全合情合理,因為它與人們普遍認知的基礎設施毫無關系。
該計劃的其他非基礎設施內容是對法律作出重大變革,但無任何預算。最重要的是,該計劃將大幅增加企業所得稅,將基本稅率從21%提高到28%,同時削減稅收優惠。此外,情況說明書還寫道,該計劃“會解決性別不平等問題”,但并未說明具體舉措。該計劃基本上要求,所有政府項目均須使用由懸掛美國國旗且由美籍船員操縱的船只運送的美國制造的產品。
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不受關注的與疫情無關的條款,這些條款改變了跨國公司分配利息成本的方式,并幫助多雇主養老金計劃擺脫困境;這兩項變化已經醞釀多年,與此次疫情無任何關系。
但與新冠疫情救助法案不同,該項基礎設施計劃并不急于落實,因此千萬別指望很快有任何舉措會被寫入法律。該計劃尚未轉為法案,因此眾議院和參議院無法對此進行辯論,最終形成的法案將會有成百上千頁。今年可能會對此進行最終投票表決。表決前,可能會刪減一些無關條款,也可能會添加一些其他條款。(財富中文網)
譯者:郝秀
審校:汪皓
拜登政府公布的大規模基礎設施計劃將造福哪些基礎設施領域?
一些共和黨批評人士認為幾乎沒有。“只有約5%到7%關乎真正意義上的基礎設施,即道路、橋梁和港口。”特朗普總統管理和預算辦公室(Office of Management and Budget)主任羅素?沃特最近表示。真的是這樣嗎?
與任何一次大規模立法一樣,拜登政府新啟動的2.2萬億美元基礎設施建設計劃也有一些令人吃驚之處,即借此機會制定的許多無關條款。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設施計劃,但拜登政府的說法卻不同。拜登政府官方稱之為《美國就業計劃》,而且該計劃一直主張要創造或保護就業機會,尤其是工會就業機會。但拜登政府對該計劃的詳細說明(一份近12,000字的情況說明書)從一開始就明顯打著基建投資的幌子。仔細閱讀該計劃,就會發現它真正涉及多少基礎設施領域。
人們大多認為基礎設施建設就是建設或改善橋梁、高速公路、道路、港口、水道和機場,該計劃為此類基礎設施建設投入1570億美元,僅占該計劃總預算成本的7%。沃特所指的就是此類基礎設施建設。但基礎設施建設還可適度包括升級廢水和飲用水系統、全國全面普及高速寬帶互聯網、建設現代化電網以及提升基礎設施彈性。因此,基礎設施建設總投入達5180億美元,占該計劃總預算成本的24%。
此外,部分預算將用于建造“上層結構”——而非基礎設施,是使用基礎設施的設施。例如,該計劃要求建造、維護或改造200多萬套住房。另一項條款將針對生產和購買美國制造電動汽車制定補貼和激勵計劃,以及為州政府、地方政府和私營單位制定補貼和激勵計劃,推動其建立電動汽車(EV)充電站。
此外,該計劃的某些內容無論是否符合政策目標,都與基礎設施無任何關系。某大型項目的預算為4000億美元,用于創造就業機會,提高護工工資。另一大型項目的預算為3000億美元,用于有針對性地援助各行各業的制造商和小企業,無論其與基礎設施是否有任何關聯。還有一個項目一經提出就引發了爭議,即投入1800億美元資助未來技術和研發產業,包括給國家科學基金會(National Science Foundation)撥款500億美元,用于建立一個“技術理事會”——政府資助型基礎研究支持者對此大加贊賞,但批評人士則對政府努力扶優扶強感到厭惡。該項目引發辯論完全合情合理,因為它與人們普遍認知的基礎設施毫無關系。
該計劃的其他非基礎設施內容是對法律作出重大變革,但無任何預算。最重要的是,該計劃將大幅增加企業所得稅,將基本稅率從21%提高到28%,同時削減稅收優惠。此外,情況說明書還寫道,該計劃“會解決性別不平等問題”,但并未說明具體舉措。該計劃基本上要求,所有政府項目均須使用由懸掛美國國旗且由美籍船員操縱的船只運送的美國制造的產品。
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不受關注的與疫情無關的條款,這些條款改變了跨國公司分配利息成本的方式,并幫助多雇主養老金計劃擺脫困境;這兩項變化已經醞釀多年,與此次疫情無任何關系。
但與新冠疫情救助法案不同,該項基礎設施計劃并不急于落實,因此千萬別指望很快有任何舉措會被寫入法律。該計劃尚未轉為法案,因此眾議院和參議院無法對此進行辯論,最終形成的法案將會有成百上千頁。今年可能會對此進行最終投票表決。表決前,可能會刪減一些無關條款,也可能會添加一些其他條款。(財富中文網)
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.