Democrats convened in Denver on Monday with the economy's woes muscling to the top of political concerns, as reflected in further drops in stocks and housing prices.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 241.81 points, or 2.1%, to 11386.25, amid continuing worry over the economic and credit problems. Inventories of unsold homes rose to a record, while prices continued to slip, threatening to delay the housing market's recovery.
Sen. Barack Obama, whom the party will nominate for president this week, addressed one of the key issues, the parlous state of the government-sponsored buyers of mortgages. 'I don't think we can allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to collapse,' he said at a town-hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, adding that their shareholders 'shouldn't be protected.'
Against this backdrop, Sen. Obama is proposing to use the government to remake economic policies in a way that hasn't been seen in Washington in decades.
The last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were hamstrung by rising deficits, feuds with Democrats in Congress and antigovernment sentiment in Washington. Sen. Obama's advisers argue that he would be largely free from those constraints, easing the way for him to put in place big government programs, tax increases on the wealthy and trade restraints.
An Obama victory would be nearly certain to usher in a larger Democratic majority, which could give his proposals smoother sailing through Congress. If the economy is faltering if and when he takes office -- as most economists and policy experts predict it will be -- Mr. Obama would push for a stimulus plan with a price tag of $115 billion, his aides say. The plan would include $1,000 rebates for moderate-income and middle-class families, aid to state and local governments and heavy spending on roads, ports and levees and other infrastructure to create jobs.
Sen. Obama, in campaign appearances and discussions with staff, has said that he would start his term in office with three big economic priorities, apart from a possible stimulus plan. One would be a government health-care plan to cover millions without insurance. Another would be a system of tradable pollution permits to reduce emissions and bankroll alternative-energy projects. He'd also push the first increases in income-tax rates since 1993 and in capital-gains taxes since 1986.
In total, his top priorities would cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and some of them might require a stiff increase in regulation.
Rice University presidential historian Alan Brinkley compares Sen. Obama's approach on economic issues to the last Democrat to occupy the White House before Mr. Carter: Lyndon Johnson. But, he says, 'it would be a Great Society with a small 'g' and a small 's'' because Sen. Obama isn't planning anything as sweeping as the creation of Medicare, Medicaid and antipoverty agencies.
No matter what he plans, he might confront circumstances that divert him from his agenda, whether foreign threats from Iraq, Iran or Russia or a recession. Any such contingencies could consume his attention as well as many billions of dollars he would rather use otherwise.
Still, many presidents have pushed through their priorities despite major setbacks. President George W. Bush drove through two rounds of tax cuts while pursuing an unanticipated global war on terror. Ronald Reagan won tax cuts and deregulation despite years of Soviet challenges.
Sen. Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, is looking at a more Reagan-style approach of lower taxes and reduced costs for business. He shares certain priorities with Sen. Obama, such as curbing greenhouse-gas emissions and expanding health care. But the Republican's environment plan is less ambitious, and his health-care plan focuses on markets, not the government. He would remake the employer-based health-care system by shifting responsibility to individuals.
Republicans hope the 'tax-and-spend liberal' attack they have used effectively in the past quarter-century still resonates with voters in 2008, and they are trying to paint the broad Obama agenda that way. The National Republican Senatorial Committee's fund-raising pitches cite the 'high taxes, wasteful spending, more regulation' an Obama presidency would supposedly try to enact.
Business groups are gearing up to fight what they consider antibusiness measures. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it's raising 'far in excess' of $20 million to support 'pro-business' candidates this year, mainly Republicans. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America association says it would bitterly fight an Obama plan to have the government negotiate prescription-drug prices.
An Obama victory would likely mean an expanded Democratic majority in Congress. In the Senate, Democrats currently have just 51 votes, a single-vote advantage. Some are hopeful that, in a strong anti-Republican year, they can boost their total to 60, enough to halt filibusters and give a Democratic White House much more freedom to drive the agenda.
Republican Sen. James DeMint of South Carolina says that Republicans would turn to conservative talk radio, blogs and friendly media, as well as fights on the Senate floor, to oppose a President Obama's plans to 'sell a socialist philosophy in a very persuasive way.'
Sen. Obama says his plan would seek to reverse Bush economic priorities that he says favored the rich and ignored the middle class. That's essentially the same charge Bill Clinton made against the first President Bush in the 1992 campaign.
Once in office, though, Mr. Clinton quickly jettisoned his plans for a middle-class tax cut and big infrastructure spending and pushed instead for a deficit-reduction plan, which required a tax increase and weakened his standing in his own party. That was followed by a bruising battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which further split Democrats, and a failed health-care plan. In 1994, Republicans won control of Congress and President Clinton governed in moderate fashion, even enacting Republican-inspired welfare reform.
Many of the economists who advised President Clinton are now central figures in Obama policy circles. They say this time, a Democratic president won't be sidetracked. The deficit, though huge at $389 billion in fiscal 2008, isn't the economic threat it once was, they argue, because as a portion of the economy, it's only a little more than half the size it was when Bill Clinton took office.
They say they have learned from President Bush that there is little political price to pay for free spending. They also say that after the corporate scandals of 2001-02 and the financial-industry crisis of this past year, both marked by flawed regulation, the country is ready for a bigger government role.
That may be a naive calculation, argues Leon Panetta, a deficit hawk who was President Clinton's chief of staff. To the extent that an Obama administration pursues an activist agenda, it could alienate conservative Democrats whose numbers are expanding as the party picks up seats in districts once held by Republicans. 'By expanding the base of the party,' Mr. Panetta says, 'you are expanding the potential for serious divisions.'
He notes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped her opposition to a vote on offshore oil drilling after conservative Democrats complained they were getting beaten up on the issue. Sen. Obama has made a similar switch, after Sen. McCain started pushing for offshore drilling.
Already, the Obama campaign is debating which economic policy to push first after a victory: climate change or health care. Though the decision probably won't be made until at least November, the discussion gives a sense of how Mr. Obama would govern.
Climate change could be the easier choice, his advisers say. There are already a number of bills in Congress that would set up a so-called cap-and-trade system: Emissions blamed for global warming would be capped, and companies would be able to trade permits that allow them to produce emissions up to a set limit. Sen. Obama could put together his own proposals relatively quickly by borrowing measures and language in existing bills.
He would have the government auction off all the permits, raising vast amounts of money -- more than $100 billion a year as the program scales up -- which he could use for other priorities, such as infrastructure spending. He already plans to commit $15 billion a year to alternative-energy programs to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He aims to cut U.S. emissions overall in 2050 by 80% from 1990 levels.
The Obama camp also believes it has a regulatory stick to force congressional action. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. While the Bush administration has taken a go-slow approach, a President Obama would shift into high gear, says Elgie Holstein, a senior Obama energy adviser. If Congress didn't act on a cap-and-trade system, he says, Mr. Obama 'wouldn't hesitate to use Clean Air Act authorization to regulate' CO2 emissions, a step that could involve a huge increase in EPA oversight of industry.
Some other Obama energy proposals -- a 'windfall profits' tax on oil companies and the tapping of the strategic petroleum reserve -- may fall by the wayside, Obama aides acknowledge, if the price of oil continues to decline and energy is less of a front-page story.
Still, Sen. Obama faces stiff opposition among many in business. The National Association of Manufacturers opposed a cap-and-trade proposal that failed in the Senate earlier this year and would likely fight an Obama plan as well. The Senate cap-and-trade proposal 'ended up being very detrimental to the economy and would put us in a position where we couldn't compete internationally,' says Jay Timmons, NAM executive vice president.
The other major Obama priority, extending health-care coverage to millions of the uninsured, is even more daunting, conceptually and politically. Sen. Obama would create a new government health-insurance plan and subsidize those who can't afford it, as well as issue regulations for private plans that wanted to compete with the government plan. He would require larger companies either to provide health insurance or to pay into a fund to help with the cost of covering the uninsured. The program would cost $115 billion a year, Sen. Obama estimates.
This hasn't been proposed in detail on the federal level, so it could take many months to put together a specific plan, making it less likely to be the first priority. Obama advisers say the concept is similar to one started in Massachusetts under former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, a possible McCain running mate. In Massachusetts, many more people have signed up than anticipated, and costs are skyrocketing.
Sen. Obama's health economists say the plan's price tag would be partly offset by lowering health-care costs by $50 billion annually. Savings would come from computerizing patient records, improving preventive care and allowing drugs to be imported from overseas, among other measures.
Some health-care economists are dubious of the cost savings. Sen. Obama's aides say they would find the rest of the revenue by reworking President Bush's tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010. But that will make the health-care battle even more complicated.
Sen. Obama would raise the top two tax rates to 36% from 33% for married couples with taxable income of more than $165,000, and to 39.6% from 35% for those couples with taxable income of more than $357,000, says Leonard Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In addition, under Sen. Obama, the tax on capital gains would increase to 20% from 15% for wealthier taxpayers.
The prospect of a tax fight and health-care battle rolled into one might prompt an Obama administration to push climate change first. But some say the breadth of the legislation could make broad-scale bargaining possible -- for instance, Mr. Obama could agree to a smaller tax increase in exchange for health-care changes. Taxes and health care are handled by the same committees in Congress, making such compromises easier to manage.
Some changes sought by Sen. Obama don't require congressional approval, which could move them to the top of his to-do list. Obama advisers expect that China, which pegs its currency to the dollar and thus appears to keep it undervalued, would be named a currency manipulator in May 2009, when the new administration must report to Congress. The designation requires the U.S. to negotiate with Beijing to realign its currency, but it might be seen as a slap in the face in China, and encourage Congress to place tariffs on Chinese imports.
***分割符***
民主党全国代表大会周一在美国丹佛召开;随着股市与房市价格继续下挫进一步突出了美国经济当前的困境，经济问题已经成为总统候选人首要的政治忧虑。
道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数周一暴跌241.81点，至11386.25点，跌幅2.1%；主要原因是市场对经济和信贷问题的担忧情绪挥之不去。房屋库存升至历史最高水平，而房屋价格仍在下滑，这种状况或将推迟房地产市场复苏的时间。
参议员巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)本周将获得民主党总统候选人提名。他就政府支持的抵押贷款公司目前的危险状况这一重要问题发表了看法。奥巴马在爱荷华州达文波特的一次会议上表示，我认为我们不能任由房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)垮掉；他补充说，两家公司的股东不应该得到保护。
在这种背景下，奥巴马上台后可能会以华盛顿数十年未见的方式重新打造美国经济政策。
上两任民主党总统吉米·特(Jimmy Carter)和比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)都因为赤字扩大、国会民主党内部纷争以及华盛顿的反政府力量而成了“瘸腿”总统。奥巴马的顾问称，奥巴马将基本不会受到这些问题的制约，为他推行大的政府计划&#12289;对富人加税和贸易限制等政策扫清了障碍。
若奥巴马当选，几乎肯定会扩大民主党的多数优势，从而有利于他的议案顺利通过国会审批。奥巴马的助手透露，如果像大多数经济学家和政策专家预计的那样，美国经济在奥巴马上任时依然步履蹒跚，奥巴马可能会推行一项规模高达1,150亿美元的经济刺激方案。该计划将包括对中等收入和中产阶级家庭退税1,000美元，对州政府和地方政府给于财政援助，同时加大对道路&#12289;港口&#12289;堤坝以及其他基础设施项目的投资，以创造就业机会。
奥巴马在参选集会和与幕僚讨论时曾表示，除了可能的经济刺激方案，他一上台还会首先解决三大经济问题。其中之一是面向数百万无保险人员的政府医疗计划；另外一个是污染排放许可交易系统，以减少排放，为替代能源项目提供资金。他还会推动美国自1993年以来首次提高所得税税率，并自1986年以来首次提高资本增值税。
总的来说，奥巴马的上述经济任务可能每年需要耗资数千亿美元，其中一些可能还需要大力加强监管。
莱斯大学(Rice University)研究美国总统历史的学者阿兰&#149;布林克利(Alan Brinkley)将奥巴马在经济问题上的方针和卡特之前上一位民主党总统林登&#149;约翰逊(Lyndon Johnson)做了比较。但布林克利表示，奥巴马的“大社会”政策可能成色有所不足，因为他打算实施的政策不像约翰逊创建的联邦医疗保险(Medicare)&#12289;联邦医疗补助(Medicaid)和扶贫机构那么有颠覆性。
不管奥巴马计划实施什么政策，他都可能会遭遇令他偏离计划的环境，这可能是来自伊拉克&#12289;伊朗或俄罗斯的外部威胁，也可能是经济陷入衰退。任何此类突发事件都可能会转移奥巴马的执政注意力，并耗费美国政府本可用于他处的数十亿美元资金。
不过，许多总统都在遭受严重挫折的情况下得以完成竞选时提出的首要任务。小布什总统在进行一场意想不到的全球反恐战争之时，还实施了两轮减税。尽管面临来自苏联的挑战，里根(Ronald Reagan)总统仍成功推行了减税和放松管制政策。
奥巴马的竞争对手参议员约翰&#149;麦凯恩(John McCain)则可能会推行更具里根风格的施政方针，实施减税政策，降低企业成本。他的首要任务与奥巴马有部分相同，例如限制温室气体排放和扩大医疗范围。不过麦凯恩的环境计划力度要温和些，他的医疗计划也主要关注于市场而不是政府。麦凯恩将重新打造基于雇主的医疗体系，将责任转移到个人身上。
过去20多年，共和党人一直贬称民主党是“只知道增加税收和开支的自由派”，他们希望这一屡试不爽的攻击手段今年也能得到选民共鸣，而且他们的确也正试图以此形容奥巴马的整体施政方针。共和党参议院全国委员会(National Republican Senatorial Committee)的筹款口号就宣称奥巴马当政可能会实施“高税收&#12289;挥霍支出&#12289;加大监管”的政策。
商业组织也在抓紧时间防范候选人可能推行他们认为不利于商业的措施。美国商会(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)表示，该组织筹集到2,000万美元的资金，足以支持今年“有利于商业”的总统候选人，主要是共和党人。美国药品研究与制造商协会(Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)表示，该机构会尽力反对奥巴马关于政府商定处方药价格的计划。
若奥巴马在大选获胜，可能意味着民主党会扩大在国会的优势。目前，民主党在参议院拥有51个席位，两党实际差距仅只有1个席位。一些民主党人士希望借助今年反共和党的强劲东风，将把在参议院的总席位一举提高到60席，从而足以避免议案遭阻的情况，使得民主党掌控下的白宫拥有足够的施政自由。
南卡罗来纳州参议员&#12289;共和党人德明特(James DeMint)表示，共和党人会转向保守的电台广播&#12289;博客以及友好媒体，同时在参议院展开争夺，以防范奥巴马当政后“以非常动人的手段推销他的社会主义施政哲学”。
奥巴马表示，他的计划会逆转布什的首要经济任务；他认为布什的政策有利于富人，忽略了中产阶级。这和1992年克林顿对老布什总统的指责基本没什么两样。
不过，克林顿执政后迅速搁置了中产阶级减税和大规模基础设施支出的计划，转而致力于削减赤字，该计划需要增加税收，也削弱了他在民主党的声望。随后出现的是围绕北美自由贸易协议(North American Free Trade Agreement)的激烈争斗，该协议进一步分裂了民主党内部力量，接下来就是以失败告终的医疗计划。1994年共和党人赢回了国会控制权，克林顿也逐渐采取了温和的政策，甚至施行了共和党人提议的福利改革。
许多曾出任克林顿顾问的经济学家目前也在奥巴马智囊团内担任了核心角色。他们表示，这次民主党总统不会再受到国会制约了。他们认为，尽管2008财年美国财政赤字高达3,890亿美元，但对经济的威胁却不及以往，因为这一赤字占经济的比例只有克林顿上台时的一半左右。
他们表示，自己已经从布什总统执政中吸取了教训，认识到大量支出并不会付出什么政治代价。他们还表示，在2001-02年的企业丑闻以及过去一年金融业危机发生后，美国已经准备扩大政府作用，因为两个问题都与监管不力有关。
曾担任克林顿总统幕僚长的帕内塔(Leon Panetta)强烈主张控制联邦财政预算&#12289;减小赤字。他表示，这可能是个幼稚的结论。奥巴马政府若推行激进政策，则可能会疏远与保守派民主党人的关系；随着民主党逐渐从共和党手中夺得议会席位，保守派民主党人的数量也在不断增加。帕内塔说，随着民主党席位不断扩大，出现严重分歧的可能性也在不断增加。
他指出，由于保守派民主党人的抱怨，众议院议长南茜&#149;佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)放弃了对一项海上石油钻井议案的反对。而在麦凯恩开始支持海上钻井之后，奥巴马的态度也做出了类似转变。
奥巴马的竞选班子已经对获胜后应首先推行哪方面的经济政策产生了分歧：是气候变化还是医疗卫生？尽管最终决定可能至少要到11月才能揭晓，但这场讨论可以让人们对奥巴马的执政方针有所了解。
他的顾问说，气候变化会是一个更容易做出的选择。国会已经有不少提案，它们提出设立总量控制与交易制度，即对导致全球变暖的排放进行总量控制，企业可以针对排放许可额度进行交易。奥巴马可以借鉴现有法案中的措施和措辞，较快地推出自己的方案。
他将让政府拍卖全部许可额度，随着项目的推进最终每年能筹集超过1,000亿美元的资金，用于基础设施建设等其他重点项目。他已计划每年向可替代能源领域投资150亿美元，降低美国对海外石油的依赖。他的目标是到2050年，美国的排放总量比1990年时降低80%。
奥巴马阵营还认为，它有迫使国会采取行动的管制办法。美国最高法院曾裁决，环境保护署可根据清洁空气法案对二氧化碳进行监管。奥巴马的高级能源顾问霍尔斯坦(Elgie Holstein)说，布什政府采取了缓步推进的做法，但奥巴马可能会加快速度。他说，如果国会不按照总量控制与交易制度行事，奥巴马会毫不犹豫地使用清洁空气法案的权限管制二氧化碳排放，此举会大大增加环境保护署对各行业的监督。
奥巴马的助手承认，如果石油价格继续回落，能源不再成为大众关注的焦点，奥巴马的其它一些能源提议──对石油公司征收暴利税和动用战略石油储备──可能会遇到阻碍。
不过，奥巴马的上述计划遭到了许多商界人士的强烈反对。美国全国制造商协会(National Association of Manufacturers)反对今年初在参议院碰壁的总量控制与交易方案，可能还反对奥巴马的一项计划。该协会执行副总裁蒂蒙斯(Jay Timmons)说，参议院的总量控制与交易法案对经济非常有害，将使我们陷入无法展开全球竞争的境地。
奥巴马的另一个重点──让数百万未参加保险的人员享受医疗保健计划──更为理想化&#12289;政治化，也更令人生畏。奥巴马将建立一套新的政府医疗保险计划，对那些负担不起保险的人提供补贴，并对那些想与政府计划竞争的私营计划制定监管规定。他需要更大的公司提供医疗保险或是提供资金帮助解决覆盖未参保人员的成本。奥巴马估计，这项计划每年需要花费1,150亿美元。
该计划尚未提出联邦层面上的具体做法，因此可能还需数月时间才能拿出详细计划，因而不太可能成为奥巴马的头号任务。奥巴马的顾问表示，这个概念同马萨诸塞州前共和党州长罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)任职时最先推出的一套做法相似，而罗姆尼可能成为麦凯恩的竞选搭档。马萨诸塞州参加该计划的人比预期高出很多，成本直线攀升。
奥巴马的医疗经济学家表示，该计划的价格将因医疗成本每年下降500亿美元所部分抵消。节约部分将来自患者病例的电脑化&#12289;预防性治疗的增加和允许从海外进口药品等措施。
一些医疗经济学家对成本的节约持怀疑态度。奥巴马的助手称，他们将从调整布什总统的税收减免项目中筹集剩余收入（该项目定于2010年末到期）。但这将使医疗之争变得更复杂。
无党派智囊机构税收政策中心(Tax Policy Center)负责人波曼(Leonard Burman)说，奥巴马将把夫妻应税收入超过165,000美元的税率从33%提高到36%，超过357,000美元的税率从35%提高到39.6%。此外，奥巴马还将把富人的资本利得税从15%提高到20%。
税收之争和医疗之争可能纠缠到一起的前景或许促使奥巴马政府首先考虑气候变化问题。但一些人表示，立法的广度使更大范围的讨价还价成为可能──比如，奥巴马可能同意小幅加税换取医疗卫生政策的改变。税收和医疗事务在国会是由同一个委员会负责，这样就更容易达成妥协。
奥巴马想做的一些调整不需得到国会的批准，这些可能会排在首要任务清单的前列。奥巴马的顾问预计，2009年5月中国可能会被定为汇率操纵国，届时新政府必须向国会作出汇报。被定为汇率操纵国将要求美国与中国谈判重新设定汇率，但它可能会被视为给中国当面一记耳光，并鼓励国会对中国进口产品设置关税。
