Why Did Trump Choose to be Such an Unpopular President?
Donald Trump promised to deliver a middle-class tax cut of epic proportions.
唐纳德·特朗普承诺对中产阶级进行史无前例的减税。
“The largest tax reductions are for the middle class, who have been forgotten,” Trump said in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on Oct.
“最大的减税是针对已被遗忘的中产阶级，”特朗普于 10 月 17 日在宾夕法尼亚州葛底斯堡表示。
22, 2016.
2016 年 22 日。
If Trump had fulfilled that campaign promise, it would have made him spectacularly popular and vastly increased his support beyond his base.
如果特朗普兑现了竞选承诺，他将会非常受欢迎，并大大增加他在基层之外的支持率。
He, not the ‘Republican Party,’ controlled the House and the Senate.
控制众议院和参议院的是他，而不是“共和党”。
Many Democrats would have supported a serious cut in middle-class taxes.
许多民主党人会支持大幅削减中产阶级的税收。
Better yet, from Trump’s perspective, many Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and ‘Chuck’ Schumer would have bitterly opposed the Trump Tax Triumph on the economically illiterate basis that budget surpluses are next to godliness.
更好的是，从特朗普的角度来看，南希·佩洛西和“查克”舒默等许多民主党人会强烈反对特朗普的税收胜利，因为他们对经济一无所知，认为预算盈余仅次于虔诚。
Trump could have followed up his tax cut success with a real infrastructure program distributed through grants to counties, cities, and states.
特朗普本可以在减税成功之后，通过向县、市和州拨款的方式实施真正的基础设施计划。
Again, this would have been spectacularly popular and even Pelosi and Schumer would have rushed to co-sponsor the legislation.
同样，这会非常受欢迎，甚至佩洛西和舒默也会争先恐后地共同发起这项立法。
This would have been the second Trump triumph.
这将是特朗普的第二次胜利。
With those two triumphs, the Republicans would have won a whole series of close congressional elections in 2018, retained (and perhaps expanded) control of the House, and expanded control of the Senate.
凭借这两次胜利，共和党将赢得 2018 年一系列势均力敌的国会选举，保留（或许还会扩大）众议院的控制权，并扩大对参议院的控制权。
That would have been the third Trump triumph and would have positioned him brilliantly for reelection.
这将是特朗普的第三次胜利，并将为他的连任奠定良好的基础。
I return now to expanding on the mystery of Trump’s refusal to enact a real tax cut for the middle class.
我现在回到扩大特朗普拒绝为中产阶级实施真正减税的神秘面纱。
As Paul Krugman has emphasized, it is extraordinary for a President to give away trillions of dollars in tax reductions – and end up like Trump having his tax cuts prove massively unpopular.
正如保罗·克鲁格曼所强调的那样，一位总统捐出数万亿美元的减税资金，结果却像特朗普一样，其减税政策极不受欢迎，这是非同寻常的。
Consider how easy it would have been for Trump’s Treasury Department to design the tax cut to expand his base and deepen his popularity with his base.
想想看，特朗普的财政部设计减税措施来扩大他的选民基础并加深他在选民中的声望是多么容易。
The average annual tax savings of the quintessential middle-class household with an income of $50,000 – $75,000 is a paltry $870.
收入在 50,000 美元至 75,000 美元的典型中产阶级家庭平均每年节省的税款仅为 870 美元。
Worse, the Trump corporate tax cuts are permanent, but the tax cuts for the middle class largely end in 2027.
更糟糕的是，特朗普的企业减税政策是永久性的，但针对中产阶级的减税政策基本上会在2027年结束。
By 2027, the net effect of the Trump tax plan for that same middle-class family would be a $30 tax increase.
到 2027 年，特朗普税收计划对同一中产阶级家庭的净效应将是增税 30 美元。
Working class households would suffer slightly larger tax increases in 2027 than their middle-class counterparts.
到 2027 年，工薪阶层家庭的税收增幅将略高于中产阶级家庭。
Treasury, run by a plutocrat (Steven Mnuchin) for plutocrats, designed the Trump plan to give its benefits overwhelmingly to the plutocrats.
由富豪（史蒂文·姆努钦）为富豪服务的财政部设计了特朗普计划，将其利益压倒性地让给了富豪。
Mnuchin’s minions, drawn from the worst of Wall Street, ensured that the tax cut benefits would go overwhelmingly to the ultra-wealthy.
姆努钦的爪牙来自华尔街最底层的人，他们确保减税福利将绝大多数流向超级富豪。
Trump could have created a real middle-class tax cut.
特朗普本可以创造真正的中产阶级减税政策。
He could have used round numbers – every household with combined taxable income below $75,000 gets a Trump refund of $5,000.
他本可以使用整数——每个应税收入合计低于 75,000 美元的家庭都能获得特朗普 5,000 美元的退税。
If Trump wanted the refund more quickly, he could have given every household with taxable income below $75,000 the prior tax year an anticipatory refund of $5,000.
如果特朗普希望更快地获得退税，他可以为上一纳税年度应税收入低于 75,000 美元的每个家庭提供 5,000 美元的预期退税。
If he wanted to favor groups that made up his existing base, the Trump tax cuts could have been larger for farmers, blue-collar workers, or the elderly.
如果他想要支持构成其现有基础的群体，那么特朗普的减税政策可能会对农民、蓝领工人或老年人进行更大的减税。
He could have denied tax cuts to those he viewed as likely to vote against him – the poor.
他本可以拒绝对那些他认为可能投票反对他的人——穷人——进行减税。
If Trump wanted to plug entrepreneurship, he could have created a $20,000 tax credit for anyone who started a new business during the tax year (or even in prior tax years).
如果特朗普想促进创业，他可以为任何在纳税年度（甚至之前纳税年度）创办新企业的人提供 20,000 美元的税收抵免。
These are merely examples designed to make the general point – it is easy to shape a massive middle-class tax cut certain to be spectacularly popular with broad segments of the population – including Democrats and Independents otherwise inclined to vote for the Democrats.
这些只是旨在说明一般观点的例子——很容易制定大规模的中产阶级减税政策，而且肯定会受到广大民众的欢迎——包括民主党人和原本倾向于投票支持民主党的独立人士。
What would have such a real tax for the middle-class have done to the overall economy?
对中产阶级征收这样的实际税会对整体经济产生什么影响？
It would have stimulated the economy far more effectively than Trump’s tax giveaway to the plutocrats – and it would not have produced any harmful inflation.
它对经济的刺激作用远比特朗普向富豪减税要有效得多 — — 而且不会产生任何有害的通货膨胀。
The reason for the first point is that the working and middle class are far more likely to increase their consumption if given a lump sum tax cut of several thousand dollars.
第一点的原因是，如果一次性减税数千美元，工薪阶层和中产阶级更有可能增加消费。
That increases demand and business leaders respond by increasing production and capacity, which further stimulates demand.
这增加了需求，企业领导人通过增加产量和产能来应对，从而进一步刺激需求。
The obvious question is “can this cause inflation in some circumstances?” Yes, if the tax cut is so large relative to unused capacity that it creates a serious scarcity of real resources.
显而易见的问题是“在某些情况下这会导致通货膨胀吗？”是的，如果减税幅度相对于未使用的产能而言如此之大，就会造成实际资源的严重稀缺。
The Great Financial Crisis, however, so reduced labor force participation and growth that cuts the size of the Trump tax cut, even if given to the middle class instead of to the plutocrats, would not have been large enough to absorb our economy’s unusually large unused capacity.
然而，金融危机极大地降低了劳动力参与率和经济增长，从而削减了特朗普减税的规模，即使是针对中产阶级而不是富豪，也不足以吸收我们经济异常庞大的未利用产能。
Trump’s tax giveaway to his puppet masters (my wife’s apt phrase), predictably, did not lead to a record economic boom stimulated by a dramatic surge in investment in new plant, equipment, and research & development.
不出所料，特朗普对他的傀儡主人的税收优惠（我妻子的恰当用语）并没有带来新工厂、设备和研发投资大幅增长所刺激的创纪录的经济繁荣。
Instead, it produced an orgy of stock buybacks and massive raises for CEOs.
相反，它引发了一场股票回购狂欢和首席执行官大幅加薪。
What would the public reaction have been to a real middle-class tax cut that stimulated the general economy far more effectively that Trump’s tax payoff to his puppet masters?
如果真正的中产阶级减税比特朗普向他的傀儡主人纳税更有效地刺激整体经济，公众会有何反应？
The public would have loved it and given Trump great credit for it.
公众会喜欢它，并给予特朗普很大的赞誉。
The last sentence understates the scale of political benefits that would have come to Trump had he fulfilled his campaign promise to slash middle-class taxes.
最后一句话低估了特朗普如果履行削减中产阶级税收的竞选承诺，将会获得多大的政治利益。
It leaves out how much the so-called Democratic centrists’ opposition to such a tax cut would have added to Trump’s popularity while reducing support for Democrats in the 2018 congressional elections.
它忽略了所谓的民主党中间派反对这种减税会在多大程度上增加特朗普的支持率，同时减少 2018 年国会选举中对民主党的支持。
The ‘New Democrats’ and the House Democratic leadership are fervent supporters of “paygo” limitations on budget expenditures.
“新民主党”和众议院民主党领导层是预算支出“现收现付”限制的热心支持者。
They are far to the right of Republican members of Congress on this issue.
在这个问题上，他们远远落后于国会共和党议员。
More precisely, Republican members of Congress overwhelmingly pretend to care about budget deficits and federal debt only when the President is a Democrat.
更准确地说，绝大多数国会共和党议员只在总统是民主党人时才假装关心预算赤字和联邦债务。
‘New Democrats,’ ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats, and Democrats who join “Problem Solvers” and other groups religiously oppose deficits even when increasing the deficit is the best economic action.
“新民主党”、“蓝狗”民主党以及加入“问题解决者”和其他团体的民主党人都虔诚地反对赤字，即使增加赤字是最好的经济行动。
The result of the ‘centrist’ Democrats’ war against even desirable deficits is that they would have fought and died to oppose a real middle-class Trump tax cut.
“中间派”民主党对理想赤字发动战争的结果是，他们会为反对特朗普真正的中产阶级减税而奋斗并付出生命。
They would have predicted that it would produce a disaster.
他们本来会预测这会带来一场灾难。
Their predictions about the grave and imminent peril of increasing the deficit, as always, would have proven false.
他们对赤字增加所带来的严重且迫在眉睫的危险的预测将被证明是错误的。
Trump would have emerged with his own popularity greatly expanded and enhanced as his greatest rival’s popularity greatly diminished.
特朗普出现时，他自己的声望将大大扩大和提高，而他最大的竞争对手的声望却大大下降。
The Republicans would have held the House, and possibly expanded their majority there and added to their Senate majority.
共和党将控制众议院，并可能扩大众议院的多数席位，并增加参议院的多数席位。
Trump would have demonstrated that he was the expert on the economy, taxes, and the deficit.
特朗普会证明他是经济、税收和赤字方面的专家。
Pelosi would have demonstrated her recurrent failure to understand the economy, taxes, and the deficit.
佩洛西会证明她一再不了解经济、税收和赤字。
She would likely have been defeated in 2018 in the Democratic vote for minority leader.
她很可能在 2018 年民主党少数党领袖投票中落败。
Pelosi is a skilled legislative leader, with terrible, closely related, blindspots on deficits and the urgency of dealing with climate change.
佩洛西是一位熟练的立法领导人，在赤字和应对气候变化的紧迫性方面存在可怕的、密切相关的盲点。
She acts as if we cannot afford to save the planet by acting decisively against global climate change now.
她的表现就好像我们现在无法通过果断行动应对全球气候变化来拯救地球。
That view is horrific economics and public policy.
这种观点是可怕的经济学和公共政策。
Similarly, she would have been at her worst in arguing that Trump was endangering the Nation by creating a real trillion-dollar middle-class tax cut.
同样，如果她认为特朗普实施了数万亿美元的中产阶级减税计划，正在危及国家，那她的态度也会最糟糕。
She would have been the face of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections – the woman and her Party that tried to keep your middle-class family from receiving a $5,000 tax cut.
她本可以成为 2018 年选举中民主党的代言人——这位女士和她的政党试图阻止你的中产阶级家庭获得 5,000 美元的减税。
When the economy reacted positively to the resultant stimulus, her humiliation, and that of her Party, would have been complete.
当经济对由此产生的刺激措施做出积极反应时，她和她的政党的耻辱就结束了。
Given what Trump knows now about Pelosi’s skill in legislative infighting he should be able to weigh the “opportunity cost” of not using a real middle-class tax cut to maintain control of the House and to discredit and ultimately cause the Democrats to remove Pelosi from leadership.
鉴于特朗普现在对佩洛西在立法内斗方面的技巧的了解，他应该能够权衡不使用真正的中产阶级减税来维持对众议院的控制以及抹黑并最终导致民主党将佩洛西赶下领导地位的“机会成本”。
Trump’s cowardly and corrupt surrender to his puppet masters on the tax cut and infrastructure allowed the Democrats to gain control of the House.
特朗普在减税和基础设施问题上懦弱而腐败地向他的傀儡主子投降，让民主党获得了众议院的控制权。
That made it possible for Pelosi to become Speaker again and to rain down the blows on Trump that have made his life miserable.
这使得佩洛西有可能再次成为议长，并减轻对特朗普的打击，这些打击让他的生活变得悲惨。
Trump’s refusal to deliver the great middle-class tax cut he promised (twice, in 2016 and 2018) has only two possible explanations.
特朗普拒绝兑现他承诺的大幅中产阶级减税（2016 年和 2018 年两次）只有两种可能的解释。
One, he is spectacularly stupid.
第一，他非常愚蠢。
Not mediocre, lazy, or nearly invincibly ignorant.
不是平庸、懒惰，或者近乎无敌的无知。
It takes spectacular stupidity to be unable to see, after months of meeting and press reactions, that the middle-class will love major middle-class tax cuts and hate tax cuts designed by Trump’s puppet masters to go overwhelmingly to the exceptionally wealthy.
在经过数月的会议和媒体反应之后，人们还看不到中产阶级会喜欢中产阶级的重大减税政策，并讨厌特朗普傀儡大师设计的减税政策，这些减税政策绝大多数流向了异常富有的人，这是极其愚蠢的行为。
Trump is the laziest, most corrupt, and most narcissistic President in U.S. history.
特朗普是美国历史上最懒惰、最腐败、最自恋的总统。
It is clear whenever he speaks that he is far from intelligent.
每当他说话时，都可以清楚地看出他远非聪明。
He is not, however, spectacularly stupid.
然而，他并不是特别愚蠢。
He is normal stupid.
他就是正常的傻子。
He knew that a real middle-class tax cut would have made him spectacularly popular.
他知道真正的中产阶级减税将使他非常受欢迎。
The other explanation for Trump’s breaking his tax promise to his base also explains his breaking his infrastructure promise.
特朗普违反对选民的税收承诺的另一种解释也解释了他违反了基础设施承诺。
In both cases, Trump has chosen the policy option that is worst for the American people – and for Trump’s popularity.
在这两种情况下，特朗普都选择了对美国人民和特朗普的受欢迎程度最不利的政策选择。
In both cases, Trump kowtows not to his base but to the wealthiest and most rapacious American elites.
在这两种情况下，特朗普都不是向他的选民屈服，而是向最富有、最贪婪的美国精英屈服。
Trump is spectacularly cheap.
特朗普非常便宜。
He did not fund his presidential election and he was not remotely as wealthy as he claimed to be for decades.
他没有为总统选举提供资金，而且他也远不像他几十年来声称的那样富有。
He cannot borrow from any reputable bank in the world.
他无法从世界上任何一家信誉良好的银行借钱。
He is in office not due to a wave of small contributions from his base, but because he kissed the ring of a whole string of plutocrats who share two Trumpian traits.
他之所以能上台，并不是因为他的支持者的一波小额捐款，而是因为他亲吻了一大批具有特朗普式特征的富豪。
They are sleaze and they are greedy.
他们很卑鄙，而且很贪婪。
They provided the funding to put Trump in office.
他们为特朗普上台提供了资金。
Their members and minions populate the horror show that is the Trump administration.
他们的成员和爪牙充斥着特朗普政府的恐怖秀。
The plutocrats crafted the Trump tax cut to provide the astonishing transfer of wealth to the plutocrats.
富豪们精心策划了特朗普的减税政策，以向富豪们提供惊人的财富转移。
The plutocrats knew that if Trump delivered a real middle-class tax cut and infrastructure program he would become spectacularly popular.
富豪们知道，如果特朗普实施真正的中产阶级减税和基础设施计划，他将变得非常受欢迎。
That would make him far more powerful and potentially independent from his plutocratic puppet masters.
这将使他更加强大，并有可能独立于他的财阀傀儡主人。
A real middle class tax cut would have given tax relief overwhelmingly to the middle-class instead of the plutocrats.
真正的中产阶级减税应该是为中产阶级而不是富豪提供压倒性的税收减免。
The puppet masters hated that idea and killed it before it ever became a policy alternative in the Trump administration.
傀儡主人们讨厌这个想法，并在它成为特朗普政府的政策选择之前就将其扼杀了。
Similarly, a real infrastructure stimulus plan would have made regular Americans far better off, made Trump widely more popular, and driven bipartisan agreement.
同样，真正的基础设施刺激计划将使普通美国人的生活变得更好，让特朗普更受欢迎，并推动两党达成协议。
Trump’s plutocratic puppet masters killed that option before it could become a policy alternative.
特朗普的财阀傀儡大师在这一选项成为政策替代方案之前就扼杀了它。
The result is a plan designed by and for the puppet masters.
结果是一个由木偶大师设计并为木偶大师设计的计划。
Their predatory “partnerships” have the public provide the financing while the plutocrats skim the profits and dump the losses on the public.
他们的掠夺性“伙伴关系”让公众提供融资，而富豪们却攫取利润，将损失转嫁给公众。
We have run two real world tests of the relative power of Trump’s base versus his puppet masters.
我们对特朗普的支持者和他的傀儡主人的相对力量进行了两次现实世界的测试。
In both tax cuts and infrastructure, Trump has shown slavish fealty to his puppet masters even when it harms and upsets his base and prevents tens of millions of other Americans from adding their support.
在减税和基础设施建设方面，特朗普对他的傀儡主人表现出了奴隶般的忠诚，即使这伤害和扰乱了他的支持者，并阻止了数以千万计的其他美国人加入他们的支持。