Well, good afternoon, and -- and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak to all of you -- and to have a microphone that I can see. Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him. 下午好，感谢迪恩·辛格尔顿和美联社董事会今天邀请我来到这里。很高兴能向各位发表演讲——而且能看到一支我能看得见的麦克风。如果你们碰到弗拉基米尔，尽管把这些内容转达给他。
Clearly, we’re already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments. You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write -- unless, of course, you're writing about the other guy -- in which case, good job. 显然，我们已经进入了又一个漫长而热闹的大选年的头几个月。会有失言和小争议，会有未关麦的时刻和磁性画板式的翻脸事件。你们会报道我们说的每一个字，而我们会大声抱怨你们写的不中听的话——当然，除非你们写的是另一个人——那篇报道就写得好。
But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now -- issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. 但当前也面临着重大的根本性问题——这些问题值得每一位候选人认真辩论，也值得每一位记者深入报道。无论下一任总统是谁，他都将继承一个正在复苏但尚未完全恢复的经济，这是自大萧条以来最严重的经济灾难。太多美国人仍将在寻找一份足以支付账单或房贷的工作。太多公民仍将缺乏那种在这场衰退到来之前多年就已经开始消逝的财务安全感。
A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down. 过去十年间累积的债务——主要由两场战争、两次大规模减税和一场前所未有的金融危机所致——必须得到偿还。
In the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules? 面对所有这些挑战，作为一个国家，我们必须回答一个核心问题：我们能否、以及如何为那些愿意努力工作、负责任地生活的国民重建安全感？当一个国家中越来越少的人获得了极大成功，而越来越多的人却在艰难谋生时，我们能成功吗？还是说，当每个人都获得公平的机会，每个人都承担应尽的义务，每个人都遵守同样的规则时，我们会过得更好？
This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008. It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear. 这不是又一场普通的政治辩论。我说过这是我们这个时代的决定性问题，我深信如此。这是我2008年参选的原因。这是我总统任期的核心使命。这是我再次参选的原因。我相信这是中产阶级的决定性时刻，我不记得有哪个时期，我们对未来不同愿景之间的选择曾经如此明确。
Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent’s love and attention. 请记住，我从来不是那种认为政府能够或应该试图解决每一个问题的人。你们中有些人知道，我在芝加哥的第一份工作是和一群天主教堂合作，这些教堂为社区民众所做的好事往往超过任何政府项目。在同样的社区里，我看到无论多么精心设计的教育政策，都无法取代父母的关爱和陪伴。
As President, I’ve eliminated dozens of programs that weren’t working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office -- since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years. 作为总统，我已经取消了几十个不奏效的项目，公布了五百多项监管改革，将为企业和纳税人节省数十亿美元，并使年度国内支出走上一条下降之路，降至德怀特·艾森豪威尔执政以来——也就是我出生之前以来的最低经济占比。我知道这个国家真正的就业创造引擎是私营部门，而不是华盛顿，这就是为什么我在过去三年里为小企业主减税17次。
So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea. But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. 因此我深信，自由市场是人类历史上推动经济进步的最伟大力量。我的母亲和抚养我长大的外祖父母灌输给我自力更生和个人责任的价值观，这仍然是美国理念的基石。但我也认同我们的第一位共和党总统亚伯拉罕·林肯的信念——即通过政府，我们应该共同完成那些我们各自无法做好的事情。
That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children. That belief is why we’ve been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we’ve been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. 正是这种信念使这个国家能够建设一支保障我们安全的强大军队，以及教育我们子女的公立学校。正是这种信念使我们能够铺设铁路和公路，便利出行和商业。正是这种信念使我们能够支持科学家和研究人员的工作，他们的发现拯救了生命，引发了一次又一次的技术革命，并带来了无数新的就业机会和整个产业。
That belief is also why we’ve sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. 也正是这种信念促使我们致力于确保每一位公民都能获得某种基本的安全保障。我们这样做是因为我们认识到，无论我们多么负责任地生活，我们任何一个人在任何时刻都可能面临困境、遭遇不幸、患上致残的疾病或遭到裁员。因此我们为联邦医疗保险和社会保障等项目缴费，这些项目在人们一辈子辛勤工作之后保障他们获得医疗和收入来源。
We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need. 我们提供失业保险，保护我们免受意外失业的影响，并促进使我们的经济如此充满活力的劳动力流动。我们提供联邦医疗补助，确保数百万住在养老院的老年人和残障儿童能够获得他们所需的照护。
For generations, nearly all of these investments -- from transportation to education to retirement programs -- have been supported by people in both parties. As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges. It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. 世世代代以来，几乎所有这些投资——从交通到教育到退休保障项目——都得到了两党人士的支持。尽管我们可能将退伍军人福利法与富兰克林·罗斯福联系在一起，将联邦医疗保险与林登·约翰逊联系在一起，但正是共和党人林肯推动了横贯大陆铁路、国家科学院和赠地大学的建设。正是艾森豪威尔启动了州际公路系统和对科学研究的新投资。
It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare. 正是理查德·尼克松创立了环境保护署，罗纳德·里根与民主党人合作拯救了社会保障。正是乔治·W·布什为联邦医疗保险增加了处方药覆盖。
What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren’t part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth. 两党领导人历来都明白，这些投资并非某种从一个群体向另一个群体重新分配财富的阴谋。它们是我们同属一个国家的表达。这些投资让我们所有人受益。它们为真正的、持久的经济增长做出贡献。
Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require. Ask any company where they’d rather locate and hire workers -- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that’s committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development? 给我找一个不会因为更多美国人能够负担得起当今工作所需的技能和教育而获益的商业领袖。问问任何一家公司，他们更愿意在哪里落户和雇人——是在一个道路和桥梁破败不堪的国家，还是一个致力于高速互联网、高速铁路和高科技研发的国家？
It doesn’t make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don’t have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else. 当我们为老年人、病人或那些积极寻找工作的人提供基本保障时，这并不会使我们变弱。使我们变弱的是越来越少的人能够买得起我们企业销售的商品和服务，或者创业者没有财务安全感去冒险创办新企业。拖垮我们整个经济的是极少数富人与其他所有人之间日益扩大的鸿沟。
In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That’s how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That’s why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run. 在这个国家，广泛的繁荣从未从少数富人的成功中自上而下地渗透下来。它始终来自于一个强大且不断壮大的中产阶级的成功。正是因为如此，借助退伍军人福利法上大学的一代人——包括我的外祖父——帮助建设了世界上已知的最繁荣的经济。正是因为如此，像亨利·福特这样的首席执行官把给工人足够的工资使他们能买得起自己制造的汽车作为使命。正是因为如此，研究表明不平等程度较低的国家往往在长期内拥有更强劲、更稳定的经济增长。
And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we’d convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we’d just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off. 然而，在过去一个世纪的大部分时间里，我们一直在与那些不断推销某种版本涓滴经济学的人进行同样的争论。他们不断告诉我们，如果我们把更多在教育、研究和医疗方面的投资转化为减税——尤其是为富人减税——我们的经济就会变得更强。他们不断告诉我们，如果我们取消更多监管，让企业更多地污染环境、肆无忌惮地对待工人和消费者，我们所有人就会过得更好。
We’re told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it’s good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That’s the theory. 我们被告知，当富人变得更加富有，企业被允许不择手段地实现利润最大化时，这对美国是有益的，他们的成功将自动转化为给其他所有人带来更多就业和繁荣。这就是他们的理论。
Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we’ve tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down. 如今，这一理论的倡导者面临的问题是，我们已经大规模地尝试过他们的做法。他们实验的结果有目共睹。在上个十年之初，最富有的美国人在2001年获得了一次大规模减税，又在2003年获得了另一次大规模减税。我们被告知这些减税将带来更快的就业增长。但并没有。富人确实变得更富了——这是意料之中的。最顶尖的百分之一人群的收入在过去几十年中增长了超过275%，平均达到每年130万美元。但繁荣确实没有渗透下来。
Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing. 相反，在过去十年中，我们经历了半个世纪以来最慢的就业增长。而典型的美国家庭的收入实际上下降了约6%，即使经济在增长。
It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn’t have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people’s health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn’t afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people’s money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed. 那是一个保险公司、抵押贷款机构和金融机构不必遵守足够严格的监管，或者总能找到规避办法的时期。结果如何？许多这类公司的利润飙升。但人们的医保保费也同样飞涨。患者经常被拒绝提供医疗服务，往往是在他们最需要的时候。家庭被引诱，有时干脆就是被欺骗，去买他们根本负担不起的房子。用别人的钱做出了巨额、鲁莽的赌注。我们的整个金融体系几乎被摧毁。
So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. You'd think they’d say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. 所以我们已经试过了这套理论。你会认为，在涓滴经济学的实验结果已经令人痛苦地清晰之后，这一理论的支持者可能会表现出一些谦逊，可能会稍微温和一些。你会以为他们会说，也许某些规则和监管是必要的，可以保护经济并防止人们被保险公司、信用卡公司或抵押贷款机构占便宜。
Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today’s middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn’t gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people’s financial aid. 也许，仅仅是也许，在债务不断增长、不平等日益扩大的时期，我们应该暂缓给最富有的美国人再来一轮大规模减税。也许当我们知道如今大多数中产阶级的工作需要高中以上的学历时，我们不应该削减教育经费，不应该解雇成千上万的教师，不应该提高大学贷款利率，也不应该取消人们的经济资助。
But that’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget "radical" and said it would contribute to "right-wing social engineering." This is coming from Newt Gingrich. 但他们做的恰恰相反。现在掌控国会的共和党人不仅没有丝毫温和他们的立场，反而变本加厉，提出了一项如此右倾的预算案，以至于"与美国立约"看起来都像新政了。事实上，那位著名的自由派人士纽特·金里奇最初把该预算案的原始版本称为"激进"的，并说它将导致"右翼社会工程"。这话可是出自纽特·金里奇之口。
And yet, this isn’t a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party’s governing platform. This is what they’re running on. One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he’s “very supportive” of this new budget, and he even called it "marvelous" -- which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget. It’s a word you don’t often hear generally. 然而，这并不是共和党内某个小派系所支持的预算。这如今是共和党的执政纲领。这是他们的竞选纲领。我的潜在对手之一罗姆尼州长曾表示，他希望去年一份类似版本的方案能在他就任总统的第一天就作为法案提交。他说他"非常支持"这项新预算，甚至称其为"了不起"——这个词在描述预算时可不多见，在日常生活中也不多见。
So here’s what this "marvelous" budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can’t afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction. 那么，这项"了不起"的预算案到底做了什么。去年夏天，我与国会共和党人达成协议，削减约1万亿美元的年度支出。其中一些削减是关于消除浪费的；另一些则是关于我们支持但在赤字和债务的压力下无力承担的项目。协议的一部分还包括另外1万亿美元的节约保证，总计约2万亿美元的赤字削减。
This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending -- exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this -- because I don’t think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget. 然而，众议院共和党人的这项新预算打破了两党协议，提议在年度国内支出上进行大规模的新削减——而这恰恰是我们已经削减得最多的领域。我想逐一说明如果这些削减被均匀分摊的话，对我们的国家意味着什么。所以请耐心听我说。我想要详细过一遍——因为我认为人们还没有充分认识到这项预算的本质。
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth. 后年，近一千万名大学生将看到他们的经济资助平均每人被削减超过1000美元。将减少1600个医学研究资助，涉及阿尔茨海默症、癌症和艾滋病等领域的研发。将减少4000个科学研究资助，取消对48000名研究人员、学生和教师的支持。帮助我们减少对外国石油依赖的清洁能源技术投资将被削减近五分之一。
If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start Program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. 如果这项预算成为法律且削减被均匀实施，从2014年起，超过20万名儿童将失去在"开端计划"项目中接受早期教育的机会。200万母亲和幼儿将被从一个为他们提供健康食品的项目中剔除。司法部和联邦调查局将减少4500项联邦拨款，用于打击暴力犯罪、金融犯罪和保障边境安全。数以百计的国家公园将被迫在一年中的部分或全部时间内关闭。
We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat. 我们将没有能力执行那些保护我们呼吸的空气、饮用的水和食用的食品的法律。
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. 对联邦航空管理局的削减可能导致更多航班取消、延误，以及部分地区空中交通管制服务的完全取消。久而久之，我们的天气预报将变得不那么准确，因为我们无力发射新的气象卫星。这意味着州长和市长们在飓风来袭时将不得不等待更长时间才能下达疏散令。
That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. 这只是这项预算后果的部分列举。你们可以预料共和党人会说，我们会避免其中一些削减——因为他们并没有具体说明会削减哪些项目。但他们只有在其他领域削减得更多时才能避免其中一些削减。这是数学问题。如果他们想减少对医学研究的削减，就意味着他们必须在教学和执法等领域削减更多。反过来也是一样。
If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college. 如果他们想保护早期儿童教育，那将意味着进一步削减诸如试图负担大学学费的年轻人的经济资助等项目。
Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall -- but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow. 也许他们永远不会告诉我们刀会落在哪里——但你可以确信，在如此深度的削减下，没有任何秘密计划或公式能够保护我们帮助经济增长所需的投资。
This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next. 这不是推测。我没有夸大其词。这些都是事实。而这些还只是后年将会发生的削减。
If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt -- period. Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated. 如果这项预算成为法律，到本世纪中叶，我刚才提到的那些项目的资金将必须削减约95%。让我重复一遍。我刚才提到的那些门类我们必须削减95%。实际上，联邦预算基本上将只剩下权利性支出、国防开支和国债利息——仅此而已。那些历来得到两党支持的投资资金实际上将被取消。
And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself. 其他优先事项也是如此，比如交通、国土安全，以及为那些为这个国家冒生命危险的男女军人提供的退伍军人项目。这不是夸大其词。你们自己去核实吧。
And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We’re told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states -- that's the pitch: Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better. But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed -- a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million. 更不用说这项预算对医疗保健的影响了。我们被告知联邦医疗补助将被简单地交给各州管理——这是他们的说辞：让它脱离中央官僚体系，各州可以试验，能更好地运营这些项目。但各州将得到的实际上是这样的局面：他们必须在有史以来最大规模的联邦医疗补助削减面前运营这些项目——据一个无党派机构估计，这一削减将使约1900万美国人失去医疗保障——1900万。
Who are these Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid. 这些美国人是谁？许多是某人的祖父母，如果没有联邦医疗补助，他们将无法负担养老院的护理费用。许多是贫困儿童。一些是家中有自闭症或唐氏综合征患儿的中产阶级家庭。还有些是残障程度严重到需要全天候照护的孩子。这些人就是依赖联邦医疗补助的人。
Then there’s Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit. That’s a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings. 然后是联邦医疗保险。由于医疗成本持续上升，婴儿潮一代正在退休，我们都知道联邦医疗保险是我们长期赤字的最大推动因素之一。这是一个我们必须应对的挑战，方法是通过降低整体医疗成本，让老年人和纳税人都能分享到节省的钱。
But here’s the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president: Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they’ll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they’ve been doing for decades -- that’s too bad. Seniors bear the risk. 但华盛顿共和党人提出的解决方案——也是他们大多数总统候选人所采纳的——是这样的：退休者在年满65岁时不再自动加入联邦医疗保险，十年后退休的老年人将获得一张代金券，金额等于其所在地区第二便宜的商业医疗保险方案的费用。如果联邦医疗保险比那个商业保险更贵，他们想要加入传统联邦医疗保险就得自掏腰包多付费。如果医疗成本的上涨速度超过了代金券的金额——顺便说一句，几十年来一直如此——那就太糟了。风险由老年人承担。
If the voucher isn’t enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad. 如果代金券不够购买包含你所需特定医生和护理的商业保险方案，那也活该。
So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further. 因此大多数专家会告诉你，这个代金券方案鼓励节约的方式并不是通过更低成本提供更好的护理。这些商业保险公司省钱的方法是设计和推销保险方案以吸引最年轻、最健康的老年人——专挑优质客户——把更老、更病的老年人留给传统联邦医疗保险，在那里他们可以获得广泛的医生选择和有保障的护理。但这当然会使传统联邦医疗保险项目更加昂贵，并进一步提高保费。
The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won’t be on our books -- is because we’ve shifted it to seniors. They’ll bear more of the costs themselves. It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it. 最终结果是我国在医疗上的支出将会更多，政府之所以能省下一些钱——它不会体现在我们的账本上——仅仅是因为我们把成本转嫁给了老年人。他们将自行承担更多费用。这是一个糟糕的主意，它最终将终结我们所熟悉的联邦医疗保险。
Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates. 现在，这项预算的支持者会告诉我们，我们必须做出所有这些严厉的削减，因为我们的赤字太大了；这是一场关乎存亡的危机，我们必须为子孙后代着想，如此等等。如果不是他们同时提议在未来十年花费4.6万亿美元来降低税率的话，这个论点或许还有一丝可信度。
We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership. 我们被告知这些减税据说将通过取消税收漏洞和消除浪费性抵扣来弥补。但国会共和党人拒绝列出哪怕一个他们愿意取消的税收漏洞。一个都没有。顺便说一句，要接近4.6万亿美元的节约，除了大幅减少流向中产阶级家庭的各种税收优惠之外别无他法——包括医疗保险税收优惠、退休税收优惠和购房税收优惠。
Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That’s an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country -- $150,000. 与此同时，这些拟议的税收优惠将建立在已超过一万亿美元的税收赠予之上，这些赠予流向年收入超过25万美元的人群。这相当于这个国家每个百万富翁平均至少获得15万美元——15万美元。
Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year’s worth of financial aid. 让我们退后一步来看看15万能买到什么：一位老年人一年的处方药覆盖。再加上一个学校新的计算机实验室。再加上一名退伍军人一年的医疗护理。再加上一项慢性病医学研究资助。再加上一名消防员或警察一年的薪水。再加上使大学一年学费更可负担的税收抵免。再加上一年的经济资助。
One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined -- investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we’d be better off as a country if that’s how we spend it. 15万美元可以支付以上所有这些加在一起的东西——这些在教育和研究上的投资对于惠及我们所有人的经济增长至关重要。而这15万美元将流向这个国家的每一位百万富翁和亿万富翁。这项预算说，如果我们这样花钱，作为国家我们会过得更好。
This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It’s laughable. 这据说是为了偿还赤字？简直可笑。
The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created -- which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn’t agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- I'm sorry -- it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. 我创建的两党辛普森-鲍尔斯委员会——共和党人最初是支持的，直到我表示支持之后他们才反对——那才是真正为了削减赤字。我并不赞同其中所有细节。它比我自己的预算案多提出了约6000亿美元的收入和约6000亿美元——抱歉——它比我自己的预算案多提出了约6000亿美元的收入和约6000亿美元的国防削减。但鲍尔斯-辛普森方案是民主党和共和党之间一次认真、诚实、平衡的削减赤字的努力。
That’s why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach: Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue. 因此，尽管在某些方面有所不同，我的预算采取了类似的平衡方针：削减可自由支配支出，削减强制性支出，增加收入。
This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. 国会共和党人的这项预算则完全不同。它是一匹特洛伊木马。伪装成削减赤字方案，它实际上是试图将一种激进愿景强加于我们的国家。它是薄纱遮掩的社会达尔文主义。它与我们整个国家历史背道而驰——我们的历史是一个为每一个愿意努力奋斗的人提供机会和向上流动性的地方；一个繁荣不是从顶层渗透下来，而是从中产阶级的核心向外生长的地方。
And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline. 通过掏空我们发展持久型经济所必需的东西——教育和培训、研发、基础设施——它是一剂衰退的处方。
And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s and the '80s. That’s part of how we got ahead. And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation? 在座的每一位都应该理解这一点，因为这里很少有人不曾从五六十年代、七十年代和八十年代的那些投资中获益过。那是我们取得进步的一部分原因。而现在，我们要把这些梯子从下一代人面前抽走？
So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice. And I’ve already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory. In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan. 因此在接下来的几个月里，我将竭尽全力为这一更真实的美国愿景而奋斗。我们必须认真对待赤字问题，这绝对是必要的。这将需要艰难的抉择和牺牲。我已经证明了我愿意做出这些艰难的抉择，我签署了近几任总统中最大规模的支出削减法案。事实上，如果根据经济规模进行调整，国会预算办公室表示明年的总体支出将低于罗纳德·里根执政的任何一年。
And I’m willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again -- there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share. 在接下来的几个月里，我愿意做出更多艰难的支出决策。但我之前说过，现在再说一遍——必须有某种平衡。我们所有人都必须承担应尽的义务。
I’ve also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven’t always been comfortable with. But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system. 我还提出了一项详细的方案，旨在改革和加强联邦医疗保险和联邦医疗补助。到下个十年初，它将实现与辛普森-鲍尔斯方案同等规模的年度医疗节约——也就是辛普森-鲍尔斯委员会提出的方案，而且它是通过做出我党内人士并不总是感到舒适的变革来实现的。但与国会共和党人通过将成本转嫁给老年人来省钱的做法不同，我们的方法将降低整个系统的医疗成本。
It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies. It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program. It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more. It changes the way we pay for health care -- not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results. 它削减对处方药公司的过度补贴。它在不掏空项目的前提下提高联邦医疗补助的效率。它要求最富裕的老年人多付一点。它改变了我们支付医疗费用的方式——不再按照手术项目或住院天数来支付，而是通过新的激励机制鼓励医生和医院改善治疗效果。
And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need. 它还通过加强一个独立委员会来减缓联邦医疗保险成本的增长——这个委员会不是由来自政府或保险公司的官僚组成，而是由医生、护士、医学专家和消费者组成，他们将审视所有证据，在保护老年人获得所需护理的前提下，推荐减少不必要医疗支出的最佳方式。
We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes -- an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. 在税收方面，我们也采取了截然不同的方针——这一方针认为，如果我们真的想偿还债务，就不能再花数万亿美元为像我这样的人、为不需要减税甚至没有要求减税的富裕美国人减税，这是这个国家无法承受的。在这个国家最顶尖的百分之一人群所占国民收入比例已攀升至上世纪二十年代以来最高水平的时期，这些人却以50年来最低的税率之一缴税。
As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he’s paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right. 正如我和沃伦·巴菲特都已多次指出的，他缴纳的税率比他的秘书还低。这不公平。这不正确。
And the choice is really very simple. If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place -- or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose -- then one of two things happen: Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class. Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare. College students will lose some of their financial aid. Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less. 选择其实非常简单。如果你想维持这些税率和抵扣不变——或者像国会共和党人提议的那样给富人更多税收优惠——那么必然发生以下两种情况之一：要么意味着更高的赤字，要么意味着中产阶级要做出更多牺牲。老年人将不得不为联邦医疗保险支付更多费用。大学生将失去部分经济资助。勉强度日的工薪家庭将不得不承受更多，因为最富有的美国人承担得更少了。
I repeat what I’ve said before: That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math. 我重复我之前说过的话：这不是阶级斗争，这不是阶级嫉妒，这是数学。
If that’s the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we’re going to make sure every American knows about it. In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we’ve called the Buffett Rule. Simple concept: If you make more than a million dollars a year -- not that you have a million dollars -- if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your taxes shouldn’t go up. 如果国会议员们想做出这样的选择，我们将确保每一位美国人都知道这件事。几周后，将对我们所说的"巴菲特规则"进行投票。概念很简单：如果你年收入超过一百万美元——不是说你拥有一百万美元——如果你年收入超过一百万美元，你就应该缴纳至少与中产阶级家庭相同比例的所得税。另一方面，如果你年收入低于25万美元——就像98%的美国家庭那样——你的税收就不应该增加。
That’s the proposal. 这就是提案。
Now, you’ll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won’t raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. Maybe not, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want. I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. And by the way, I believe it’s the right thing to do. 你们会听到有人指出，仅靠巴菲特规则无法筹集足够的收入来解决我们的赤字问题。也许不够，但它绝对是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。我打算继续为这种平衡和公平而奋斗，直到另一方开始倾听，因为我相信这就是美国人民想要的。我相信这是为我们发展经济和壮大中产阶级所需的投资买单的最佳方式。而且，我相信这是正确的事情。
This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have. 关于政府规模和角色的这场更大的辩论——我们将在明年展开这场辩论，你们也将予以报道——自建国以来就伴随着我们。在面临巨大挑战和变革的时刻，比如我们正在经历的当下，辩论会变得更加尖锐，更加激烈。这是好事。作为一个既珍视个人自由又珍视彼此义务的国家，这是我们能够进行的最重要辩论之一。
But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. We have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations. 但无论我们争论什么、立场如何，作为美国人我们始终秉持某些信念。我们相信，为了维护自身的自由和追求自身的幸福，我们不能只想着自己。我们必须考虑到使这些自由成为可能的国家。我们必须考虑到与我们共享一个社区的同胞公民。我们必须考虑到为子孙后代守护美国梦需要什么。
And this sense of responsibility -- to each other and our country -- this isn’t a partisan feeling. This isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism. And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth. 这种对彼此和对国家的责任感——这不是党派情感。这不是民主党或共和党的理念。这是爱国主义。如果我们牢记这一点，履行我们彼此之间以及对这个名为美国的更大事业的义务，那么我毫不怀疑，我们将继续作为地球上最伟大的国家，走完我们漫长而繁荣的旅程。
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. 谢谢。愿上帝保佑你们。愿上帝保佑美利坚合众国。
Thank you. 谢谢。
Mr. [William Dean] Singletom: Thank you, Mr. President. We appreciate so much you being with us today. I have some questions from the audience, which I will ask -- and I'll be more careful than I was last time I did this. 辛格尔顿先生：谢谢您，总统先生。非常感谢您今天能来。我有一些来自听众的问题，我会一一提问——这次我会比上次更小心。
Republicans have been sharply critical of your budget ideas as well. What can you say to the Americans who just want both sides to stop fighting and get some work done on their behalf? 共和党人也对您的预算方案提出了尖锐批评。对于那些只希望两党停止争斗、为他们做些实事的美国人，您有什么要说的？
President Obama: Well, I completely understand the American people’s frustrations, because the truth is that these are eminently solvable problems. I know that Christine Lagarde is here from the IMF, and she’s looking at the books of a lot of other countries around the world. The kinds of challenges they face fiscally are so much more severe than anything that we confront -- if we make some sensible decisions. 奥巴马总统：我完全理解美国人民的沮丧情绪，因为事实是这些都是完全可以解决的问题。我知道国际货币基金组织的克里斯蒂娜·拉加德今天也在场，她在查看世界上很多其他国家的账本。只要我们做出一些合理的决策，他们所面临的财政挑战比我们面对的任何问题都要严峻得多。
So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right. These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, "Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?" Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand. 所以美国人民的直觉完全正确。如果善意的人们能够走到一起并愿意妥协，这些都是可以解决的问题。我们目前面临的挑战是，其中一方是一个不容妥协的政党。这不是我一个人的说法。我们的总统候选人曾经站在台上被问到：你们能否接受一个10比1的方案——每增加1美元收入就削减10美元支出的赤字削减方案？十比一的支出削减与收入之比。没有一个人举手。
Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today. 想一想这件事。罗纳德·里根——据我所知没有人指责他是税收加支出的社会主义者——反复认识到，当赤字开始失控时，要达成协议他就必须同时提出削减支出和增加税收。他这么做了很多次。他今天根本无法通过共和党初选。
So let's look at Bowles-Simpson. Essentially, my differences with Bowles-Simpson were I actually proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts. The Republicans want to increase defense spending and take in no revenue, which makes it impossible to balance the deficit under the terms that Bowles-Simpson laid out -- unless you essentially eliminate discretionary spending. You don't just cut discretionary spending. 让我们看看鲍尔斯-辛普森方案。本质上，我与鲍尔斯-辛普森方案的分歧在于我实际上提出的收入更少，国防支出削减也略低。共和党人想要增加国防支出且不增加任何收入，这使得在鲍尔斯-辛普森方案设定的条件下平衡赤字成为不可能——除非你基本上取消可自由支配支出。那可不只是削减可自由支配支出那么简单。
Everything we think of as being pretty important -- from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to environmental protection -- we'd essentially have to eliminate. 我们所认为相当重要的一切——从教育到基础科学研究，从交通支出到国家公园再到环境保护——基本上都得取消。
I guess another way of thinking about this is -- and this bears on your reporting. I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented -- which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. 我想另一种思考方式——这也与你们的报道有关——我认为人们常常有一种冲动，认为如果两党意见不一，那就双方都有错，真相在中间，于是呈现一种对等——我认为这反而加深了人们对华盛顿的犬儒主义态度。这不是一个存在对等的情况。
I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them. 我让国会中一些最自由派的民主党人准备对权利性支出做出有违其政治利益的重大调整，他们表示愿意这样做。但我们找不到一个共和党人愿意站出来说，我们愿意增加一些收入，甚至都不愿意暗示我们不会再给不需要减税的人更多减税。
And so I think it's important to put the current debate in some historical context. It's not just true, by the way, of the budget. It's true of a lot of the debates that we're having out here. 因此我认为重要的是将当前的辩论置于某种历史背景中。顺便说一句，这不仅适用于预算问题，也适用于我们正在进行的很多辩论。
Cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. The first President to talk about cap and trade was George H.W. Bush. Now you've got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let's gut the EPA. 总量控制与交易最初是由保守派和共和党人作为一种基于市场的解决环境问题的方案提出的。第一位谈论总量控制与交易的总统是乔治·H·W·布什。现在另一方却在说我们甚至不应该考虑环境保护，让我们削弱环保署吧。
Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach. 医疗保险——这个问题现在正处在新闻焦点——共和党初选中在医保和个人强制保险问题上之所以有一些混乱，是有原因的，因为它最初是作为一个保守派理念提出的，目的是在保留私人医疗保险市场的同时确保每个人都获得保障，以区别于单一支付方方案。现在突然间这成了某种社会主义的越权了。
So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions I'm taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What's changed is the center of the Republican Party. And that’s certainly true with the budget. 因此当你们在做报道时，我认为重要的是记住，我现在在预算和其他许多问题上的立场，如果我们是在20年前甚至15年前进行这个讨论的话，会被认为是彻头彻尾的中间派立场。改变的是共和党的中心。在预算问题上当然也是如此。
Mr. Singleton: Mr. President, the managing director of the [inaudible] for continuation of United States leadership [inaudible] economic issues, and underscored the need for a lower deficit and lower debt. How can you respond to that claim? 辛格尔顿先生：总统先生，[听不清]总裁强调了美国在经济问题上继续发挥领导地位的必要性[听不清]，并指出需要降低赤字和债务。您如何回应这一主张？
President Obama: Well, look, she's absolutely right. 奥巴马总统：嗯，你看，她说得完全正确。
It's interesting, when I travel around the world at these international fora -- and I've said this before -- the degree to which America is still the one indispensable nation, the degree to which, even as other countries are rising and their economies are expanding, we are still looked to for leadership, for agenda setting -- not just because of our size, not just because of our military power, but because there is a sense that unlike most superpowers in the past, we try to set out a set of universal rules, a set of principles by which everybody can benefit. 很有意思的是，当我在这些国际论坛上访问世界各地时——我之前也说过——美国仍然是那个不可或缺的国家，即使其他国家正在崛起、经济在扩张，我们仍然被寄望于发挥领导作用、设定议程——不仅仅因为我们的体量，不仅仅因为我们的军事实力，而是因为人们有一种感觉：与过去大多数超级大国不同，我们试图制定一套普世规则、一套让所有人都能受益的原则。
And that’s true on the economic front as well. We continue to be the world’s largest market, an important engine for economic growth. We can’t return to a time when by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth. 在经济领域也是如此。我们仍然是世界最大的市场，是经济增长的重要引擎。我们不能回到仅仅靠借贷和消费来推动全球经济增长的时代。
I said this a few months after I was elected at the first G20 summit. I said the days when Americans using their credit cards and home equity loans finance the rest of the world’s growth by taking in imports from every place else -- those days are over. On the other hand, we continue to be a extraordinarily important market and foundation for global economic growth. 我在当选后几个月后的首次二十国集团峰会上就说过。我说美国人用信用卡和房屋净值贷款为世界其他地区的增长买单、通过从各地进口商品来推动全球经济增长的日子——已经结束了。但另一方面，我们仍然是全球经济增长的极为重要的市场和基础。
We do have to take care of our deficits. I think Christine has spoken before, and I think most economists would argue as well, that the challenge when it comes to our deficits is not short-term discretionary spending, which is manageable. As I said before and I want to repeat, as a percentage of our GDP, our discretionary spending -- all the things that the Republicans are proposing cutting -- is actually lower than it's been since Dwight Eisenhower. There has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs that help the poor, environmental programs, education programs. 我们确实需要处理我们的赤字问题。我认为克里斯蒂娜之前也说过，我认为大多数经济学家也会认为，在赤字方面我们的挑战不在于短期可自由支配支出，那是可控的。正如我之前所说并想重复的，从占国内生产总值的比例来看，我们的可自由支配支出——也就是共和党人提议削减的所有那些项目——实际上比德怀特·艾森豪威尔执政以来任何时候都低。并没有出现社会项目、扶贫项目、环保项目、教育项目的大规模扩张。
That’s not our problem. 那不是我们的问题。
Our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15 and 16 percent -- far lower than it has been historically, certainly far lower than it was under Ronald Reagan -- at the same time as our health care costs have surged, and our demographics mean that there is more and more pressure being placed on financing our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs. 我们的问题在于我们的收入已降至15%到16%之间——远低于历史上的水平，当然也远低于罗纳德·里根执政时期——与此同时我们的医疗成本飙升，而我们的人口结构变化意味着为联邦医疗保险、联邦医疗补助和社会保障项目提供资金的压力越来越大。
So at a time when the recovery is still gaining steam, and unemployment is still very high, the solution should be pretty apparent. 因此，在复苏仍在积蓄势头、失业率仍然很高的时期，解决方案应该是相当明显的。
And that is even as we continue to make investments in growth today -- for example, putting some of our construction workers back to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges, or helping states to rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge difficulty retaining quality teachers in the classroom -- all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at a responsible level and to deal with our health care programs in a responsible way. And that's exactly what I'm proposing. 那就是，即使我们继续在当前增长上进行投资——比如让一些建筑工人重返岗位重建学校、道路和桥梁，或者在学校难以留住优秀教师的时候帮助各州重新雇用教师——这些都有利于我们的经济，我们同时要把重点放在长期计划上，以负责任的水平稳定我们的收入，并以负责任的方式处理我们的医疗项目。这正是我所提议的。
And what we've proposed is let's go back, for folks who are making more than $250,000 a year, to levels that were in place during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were doing just fine, and the economy was growing a lot stronger than it did after they were cut. And let's take on Medicare and Medicaid in a serious way -- which is not just a matter of taking those costs off the books, off the federal books, and pushing them onto individual seniors, but let's actually reduce health care costs. 我们提议的是，让年收入超过25万美元的人回到克林顿时代的税率水平，那时候富人过得很好，而且经济增长比减税后强劲得多。同时让我们认真对待联邦医疗保险和联邦医疗补助——这不是简单地把这些成本从联邦账本上拿掉、转嫁给老年人个人，而是要真正降低医疗成本。
Because we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced, developed nation on Earth. 因为我们在医疗上的支出比地球上任何其他发达的先进国家都多，但效果却不如它们。
And that would seem to be a sensible proposal. The problem right now is not the technical means to solve it. The problem is our politics. And that's part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about, is, are we, as a country, willing to get back to common-sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget. And it can be done. 这似乎是一个合理的提案。目前的问题不在于缺乏解决它的技术手段。问题在于我们的政治。这也是这次选举和这场辩论需要讨论的一部分，即作为一个国家，我们是否愿意回到那些鼓励长期经济增长、稳定预算的常识性、平衡、公平的解决方案。这是可以做到的。
One last point I want to make, Dean, that I think is important, because it goes to the growth issue. If state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current recovery -- on par to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now. If the construction industry were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point lower. 最后我想说一点，迪恩，我认为这很重要，因为它涉及增长问题。如果州和地方政府的雇用水平基本上与过去复苏时期相当的话，失业率大概会比现在低一个百分点。如果建筑业经历的是我们通常经历的情况，那又会再低一个百分点。
The challenge we have right now -- part of the challenge we have in terms of growth has to do with the very specific issues of huge cuts in state and local government, and the housing market still recovering from this massive bubble. And that -- those two things are huge headwinds in terms of growth. 我们目前面临的挑战——我们在增长方面面临的部分挑战——与两个非常具体的问题有关：州和地方政府的大规模削减，以及房地产市场仍在从巨大的泡沫中恢复。这两件事是增长面临的巨大逆风。
I say this because if we, for example, put some of those construction workers back to work, or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways. And that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care programs over the long term. 我说这些是因为，如果我们例如让一些建筑工人重返工作岗位，或者让一些教师重返课堂，那实际上可以帮助创造一种良性循环，仅凭经济增长就能带来更多收入，并在很大程度上使私营部门受益。这可以帮助在短期内为削减赤字做出贡献，即使我们在长期内仍须对我们的医疗项目进行这些重要的变革。
Mr. Singleton Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling? 辛格尔顿先生：总统先生，您昨天说最高法院推翻由民选国会通过的法律将是史无前例的。但最高法院在其整个存在期间做的正是这件事。如果法院推翻个人强制保险条款，对于在那项裁决后将无法获得医疗保障的3000万人，您会怎么做或打算怎么做？
President Obama: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal. 奥巴马总统：首先，让我说得更具体一些。我们没有见过法院推翻国会通过的经济问题法律——比如医保，我认为大多数人会明确将其视为商业——至少自洛克纳案以来，还没有这样的法律被推翻过。对吧？所以我们要回到三十年代、新政之前。
And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. 我要表达的观点是，最高法院对宪法和法律拥有最终决定权，我们所有人都必须尊重它，但正是因为这种非凡的权力，法院传统上对经正当选举产生的立法机构即国会保持极大的克制和尊重。因此，举证责任在于那些想要推翻这样一项法律的人身上。
Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. 正如我所说，我预计最高法院实际上会认识到这一点，并遵循已有的先例。我非常有信心，在审视这项法律时，它不仅符合宪法，而且法院会因其所拥有的深远权力而谨慎行使其法理判断。因此，我们并没有花大量时间准备应对意外情况。
What I did emphasize yesterday is there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. This is not an abstract exercise. I get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it’s not fully implemented. Young people who are 24, 25, who say, you know what, I just got diagnosed with a tumor. First of all, I would not have gone to get a check-up if I hadn’t had health insurance. Second of all, I wouldn’t have been able to afford to get it treated had I not been on my parent’s plan. Thank you and thank Congress for getting this done. 我昨天确实强调的是，这件事有一个人性化的层面，每个人都必须记住。这不是抽象的演练。我每天都会收到受到医保法案影响的人写来的信，即使该法案尚未全面实施。二十四五岁的年轻人说，你知道吗，我刚被诊断出肿瘤。首先，如果没有医疗保险，我根本不会去检查。其次，如果不是还在父母的保险计划上，我根本负担不起治疗费用。谢谢你，也感谢国会推动了这件事。
I get letters from folks who have just lost their job, their COBRA is running out. They’re in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer, and they’re worried when their COBRA runs out, if they’re still sick, what are they going to be able to do because they’re not going to be able to get health insurance. 我收到刚失业的人写来的信，他们的延续保险即将到期。他们正在接受结肠癌或乳腺癌的治疗，他们担心延续保险到期后如果还在生病该怎么办，因为那时他们将无法获得医疗保险。
And the point I think that was made very ably before the Supreme Court, but I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses. One way is the single-payer plan -- everybody is under a single system, like Medicare. The other way is to set up a system in which you don’t have people who are healthy but don’t bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room. 我认为在最高法院面前已经很有力地阐述了一个观点，而且我认为大多数研究过这个问题的医疗经济学家都承认的，就是基本上有两种方式来覆盖有既往病史的人，或确保人们在患有严重疾病时仍能获得保险。一种方式是单一支付方方案——每个人都纳入单一体系，像联邦医疗保险那样。另一种方式是建立一种制度，避免身体健康却不购买保险的人存在，然后我们所有人不得不在急诊室为他们买单。
That doesn’t work, and so, as a consequence, we've got to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does. 那样行不通，因此，我们必须确保那些人认真承担自己的责任，这正是个人强制保险条款所做的事情。
So I don’t anticipate the Court striking this down. I think they take their responsibilities very seriously. But I think what's more important is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to recognize that in a country like ours -- the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth -- we shouldn’t have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it. 因此我不预计法院会推翻这项法案。我认为他们非常认真地对待自己的职责。但我认为更重要的是，我们所有人，民主党人和共和党人，都要认识到，在像我们这样的国家——地球上最富有、最强大的国家——我们不应该有这样一个制度，让数百万人因为生病而面临破产的风险，或者等到真的病了才去急诊室，而这需要我们所有人买单。
Mr. Singleton: Mr. President, you've been very, very generous with your time, and we appreciate very much you being here. 辛格尔顿先生：总统先生，您非常非常慷慨地拨出了时间，我们非常感谢您的到来。
President Obama: Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you. 奥巴马总统：非常感谢大家。谢谢。