亞伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)有句名言：“你可以一時(shí)欺騙所有人，也可以永遠(yuǎn)欺騙某些人，但不可能永遠(yuǎn)欺騙所有人”。據(jù)報(bào)道，他的繼任者喬治•布什(George W. Bush)曾補(bǔ)充稱：“你可以永遠(yuǎn)欺騙一些人，而那些是你希望關(guān)注的人�！币恍┯�國政界人士希望在公共財(cái)政的辯論中聽從這一建議。財(cái)政大臣阿里斯泰爾•達(dá)林(Alistair Darling)拒絕這樣做，這似乎是首相戈登•布朗(Gordon Brown)希望撤換他的原因。但達(dá)林應(yīng)該因?yàn)樗�的誠實(shí)得到表揚(yáng)，而非遭到撤換。
就像我在最近兩篇專欄（《應(yīng)對英國財(cái)政大災(zāi)難》(Tackling Britain's fiscal debacle)，5月7日出版，以及《結(jié)束英國虛張聲勢的財(cái)政大戰(zhàn)》(End Britain's phoney fiscal war)，6月4日出版）中所主張的那樣，英國財(cái)政狀況已成為一項(xiàng)巨大中期挑戰(zhàn)。這也是嚴(yán)重政策失誤的明顯特征：財(cái)政部估計(jì)，公共部門的結(jié)構(gòu)性凈借款占本財(cái)年國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的9.8%。
這一可怕的數(shù)字是4個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)果：對于GDP可持續(xù)增長的過高估計(jì)；此次危機(jī)之前財(cái)政狀況逐年下滑；對可持續(xù)財(cái)政收入的夸大；實(shí)際支出飆升，這是通脹處于意外低位的結(jié)果。
因此，下一個(gè)財(cái)年，英國政府的收支比預(yù)計(jì)將達(dá)到3：4。更準(zhǔn)確的來說，2010-11年度，支出占GDP的比例預(yù)計(jì)將達(dá)到48.1%，高于2008-09年度的40.8%，經(jīng)常收入占GDP的比例預(yù)計(jì)為36.2%，低于2008-09年度的36.9%。到2013-14年度，支出占GDP的比例預(yù)計(jì)將降至43.4%，而收入占GDP的比例將升至37.9%。因此，根據(jù)工黨的計(jì)劃，財(cái)政狀況改善的四分之三，將來自公共支出占GDP的比例下降。今后多年間，支出增加速度將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于GDP增速，的確，根據(jù)可信的假設(shè)，這將持續(xù)10年。
那么，我的前同事、現(xiàn)任英國學(xué)校事務(wù)大臣埃德•鮑爾斯(Ed Balls)堅(jiān)稱，2011年以后，工黨能夠承受教育和醫(yī)療支出的實(shí)際增加，這話是什么意思呢？他的政治目標(biāo)是開辟“清澈紅水”(clear red water)，在工黨和保守黨之間劃清界線。但他的說法也說得通嗎？答案是：既說得通，又說不通。
我的同事克里斯•吉爾斯(Chris Giles)解釋了肯定答案的意思。根據(jù)英國財(cái)政部的預(yù)算報(bào)告，整體支出數(shù)字包括，按年率計(jì)算，2010-11年度至2013-14年度實(shí)際凈公共投資大幅減少17%。在債務(wù)償還和社保支出如今看來不可避免的增加后，在上述3年期間，按年率計(jì)算，實(shí)際經(jīng)常支出將以0.7%的速度下降。假設(shè)實(shí)際醫(yī)療和教育支出持平，那么其它所有領(lǐng)域的實(shí)際經(jīng)常支出——同樣在除去債務(wù)利息和社保支出后——必須以3.1%的年率下降。顯然，如果實(shí)際醫(yī)療和教育支出要大幅增長，那么其它領(lǐng)域的支出將不得不大幅下降。
這就是為什么答案也必須是否定的。如果再次當(dāng)選，工黨可能會增加醫(yī)療和教育方面的實(shí)際支出，但根據(jù)它自己的預(yù)測，其它支出將不得不大幅削減，除非工黨準(zhǔn)備運(yùn)行規(guī)模超過目前計(jì)劃的財(cái)政赤字。因此，和保守黨政府一樣，工黨政府削減實(shí)際支出也是不可避免的。唯一的問題是，什么領(lǐng)域的支出將遭到削減。
工黨如何躲避這一陷阱呢？一種可能是，反對財(cái)政部的設(shè)想，在此基礎(chǔ)上投入競選。正如其前任布朗過于樂觀那樣，達(dá)林肯定也有可能過于悲觀。目前階段，我們無從得知。然而，抱最好的希望是危險(xiǎn)的。拒絕工黨自己的財(cái)政大臣的預(yù)測也是令人尷尬的。
另一種可能是，主張?zhí)岣叨惵省Ｔ谶@里，問題是相關(guān)數(shù)字如此之大。2010-11年度之后的3年，僅僅是阻止計(jì)劃中公共支出占GDP的比例下滑，財(cái)政收入占GDP的比例就必須上升5%，至41%。以目前價(jià)格計(jì)算，財(cái)政收入必須增加600億英鎊。這相當(dāng)于將所得稅基本稅率上調(diào)12%。
偉大的美國諷刺作家亨利•路易斯•孟肯(H.L. Mencken)曾宣稱，“從來沒有人因?yàn)榈凸烂绹�大眾的品味而破產(chǎn)”。更讓我擔(dān)心的是這種嘲諷觀點(diǎn)的政治版：政界人士已形成這種看法：沒有人因?yàn)榈凸肋x民的智慧而輸?shù)暨x舉。但無論誰當(dāng)選，下屆大選的核心將是艱難的選擇。一個(gè)民主政體應(yīng)就這些選擇進(jìn)行公開且誠實(shí)的辯論。
除非經(jīng)濟(jì)恢復(fù)其喪失的產(chǎn)能，否則財(cái)政狀況將需要大幅調(diào)降支出或大幅增加稅收。的確，可能需要在兩方面都有一些行動。達(dá)林認(rèn)識到了這一簡單現(xiàn)實(shí)。保守黨也是。但布朗呢？他和他的同僚肯定有權(quán)爭取提高醫(yī)療和教育實(shí)際支出。但他們也需要說明計(jì)劃如何承擔(dān)這筆支出。不說清楚就是對選民智慧的一種侮辱。
Abraham Lincoln famously said that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. His successor, George W. Bush, is reported to have added: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” Some British politicians wish to follow that advice in the debate on the public finances. Alistair Darling's refusal to do that was, it appears, the reason Gordon Brown, the prime minister, wanted to drop him. But Mr Darling is to be praised, not dropped, for his probity.
As I have argued in two recent columns (“Tackling Britain's fiscal debacle”, May 7, and “End Britain's phoney fiscal war”, June 4), the fiscal position has become a huge medium-term challenge. It is also an obvious symptom of gross policy failure: structural public sector net borrowing is estimated by the Treasury at 9.8 per cent of gross domestic product this financial year.
This horrendous figure is the result of four mistakes: an overestimate of sustainable GDP; slippage in the fiscal position in the years up to the crisis; an exaggeration of sustainable revenue; and a surge in real spending, as a result of unexpectedly low inflation.
Next financial year, as a result, the British government is forecast to spend £4 for every £3 it receives. More precisely, spending is forecast at 48.1 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, up from 40.8 per cent in 2008-09, and current receipts are forecast at 36.2 per cent of GDP, down from 36.9 per cent in 2008-09. By 2013-14, spending is forecast to be down to 43.4 per cent of GDP, while receipts rise to 37.9 per cent. Thus, under Labour's plans, three quarters of the improvement in the fiscal position would come from a fall in public spending, relative to GDP. Spending is to grow far more slowly than GDP over many years – indeed, under plausible assumptions, for a decade.
So what did my former colleague Ed Balls, now schools minister, mean when he insisted that Labour could afford real increases in spending on schools and hospitals after 2011? His political goal is to open “clear red water” between Labour and Tories. But does his claim also make sense? The answer is: “yes” and “no”.
My colleague, Chris Giles, has worked out what a “yes” answer might mean. Assume the overall spending figures put forward in the Budget, which includes a massive 17 per cent annualised real cut in net public investment between 2010-11 and 2013-14. After the now inevitable increases in debt service and social security spending, real current spending would fall at an annualised rate of 0.7 per cent over these three years. Suppose that spending on health and education were kept level in real terms. Then real current spending on everything else – again, apart from debt interest and social security – must fall at an annual rate of 3.1 per cent a year. Evidently, if spending on health and education were to be increased significantly in real terms, cuts in other areas would have to be savage.
This is why the answer must also be “no”. If re-elected, Labour could increase real spending on health and education but, under its forecasts, other spending would have to be cut fiercely unless it were to run even bigger fiscal deficits than now planned. So cuts in real spending are as inevitable under Labour as under the Conservatives. The only question is where those cuts might fall.
How might Labour escape this trap? One possibility is to campaign against the Treasury's assumptions. It is certainly possible that Mr Darling is too pessimistic, as his predecessor, Mr Brown, was too optimistic. At this stage, we simply do not know. Yet it would be risky to hope for the best. It would also be embarrassing to reject the forecasts of Labour's own chancellor.
Another possibility would be to argue for higher taxes. Here the difficulty is that the numbers are so large. Merely to eliminate the reduction in public spending as a share of GDP planned for the three years after 2010-11, receipts must rise by 5 per cent of GDP, or £60bn in current prices, to reach 41 per cent of GDP. This would be equivalent to raising the basic rate of income tax by as much as 12p in the pound.
The great American satirist H.L. Mencken once declared that “nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the great American public”. I am more worried by a political version of this cynical view: the idea has grown up among politicians that nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the electorate's intelligence. But at the heart of the next general election will be hard choices, for whoever wins. A democracy should debate those alternatives openly and honestly.
Unless the economy recovers its lost output, the fiscal position will demand tough spending cuts or huge increases in taxation. Indeed, it will probably require some of both. Mr Darling has recognised that simple reality. So have the Conservatives. But does Mr Brown? He and his colleagues are surely entitled to campaign for higher real spending on health and education. But they also need to say how they plan to pay for it. Anything less is an insult to the electorate's intelligence.