Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat. 大家早上好。请坐。
A week ago today, I sent Congress the American Jobs Act. It's a plan that will lead to new jobs for teachers, for construction workers, for veterans, and for the unemployed. It will cut taxes for every small business owner and virtually every working man and woman in America. And the proposals in this jobs bill are the kinds that have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. So there shouldn't be any reason for Congress to drag its feet. They should pass it right away. I'm ready to sign a bill. I've got the pens all ready. 一周前的今天，我向国会提交了《美国就业法案》。这是一项将带来新就业机会的计划——为教师、建筑工人、退伍军人和失业者创造就业。它将为每一个小企业主和几乎每一个美国工薪阶层减税。这项就业法案中的提案，过去曾获得民主党和共和党的共同支持。因此，国会没有任何理由拖延。他们应该立即通过。我已经准备好签署法案了。签字笔都准备好了。
Now, as I said before, Congress should pass this bill knowing that every proposal is fully paid for. The American Jobs Act will not add to our nation's debt. And today, I'm releasing a plan that details how to pay for the jobs bill while also paying down our debt over time. 正如我之前所说，国会应该通过这项法案，并清楚每一项提案都已全额支付。《美国就业法案》不会增加国家债务。而今天，我发布了一项计划，详细说明如何为就业法案买单，同时逐步偿还债务。
And this is important, because the health of our economy depends in part on what we do right now to create the conditions where businesses can hire and middle-class families can feel a basic measure of economic security. But in the long run, our prosperity also depends on our ability to pay down the massive debt we've accumulated over the past decade in a way that allows us to meet our responsibilities to each other and to the future. 这一点很重要，因为我国经济的健康在一定程度上取决于我们现在采取的行动，创造企业可以雇佣人才、中产家庭能获得基本经济保障感的条件。但从长远来看，我们的繁荣也取决于是否有能力偿还过去十年累积的巨额债务，同时履行我们对彼此和后代的责任。
During this past decade, profligate spending in Washington, tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, the cost of two wars, and the recession turned a record surplus into a yawning deficit, and that left us with a big pile of IOUs. If we don't act, that burden will ultimately fall on our children's shoulders. If we don't act, the growing debt will eventually crowd out everything else, preventing us from investing in things like education, or sustaining programs like Medicare. 过去十年间，华盛顿的挥霍性支出、面向千万富翁和亿万富翁的减税、两场战争的费用以及经济衰退，将创纪录的财政盈余变成了巨大的赤字，留给我们一堆欠条。如果我们不采取行动，这一负担最终将压在我们子孙后代的肩上。如果我们不采取行动，不断增长的债务终将挤占其他一切开支，阻碍我们投资教育，也难以维持医疗保健等项目。
So Washington has to live within its means. The government has to do what families across this country have been doing for years. We have to cut what we can't afford to pay for what really matters. We need to invest in what will promote hiring and economic growth now while still providing the confidence that will come with a plan that reduces our deficits over the long-term. 因此，华盛顿必须量入为出。政府必须像全国各地的家庭多年来所做的那样行事。我们必须削减无法承担的开支，为真正重要的事务买单。我们需要投资能促进就业和经济增长的项目，同时通过一项长期减赤计划来增强信心。
These principles were at the heart of the deficit framework that I put forward in April. It was an approach to shrink the deficit as a share of the economy, but not to do so so abruptly with spending cuts that would hamper growth or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet. 这些原则正是我在四月份提出的赤字框架的核心。这一方针旨在缩减赤字在经济中的占比，但不会以削减支出的方式过于急骤地行事，因为那会阻碍增长或妨碍我们帮助小企业和中产家庭重新站稳脚跟。
It was an approach that said we need to go through the budget line-by-line looking for waste, without shortchanging education and basic scientific research and road construction, because those things are essential to our future. And it was an approach that said we shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class; that for us to solve this problem, everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, have to pay their fair share. 这一方针主张，我们需要逐条审查预算，寻找浪费，但不会因此削减教育和基础科学研究以及道路建设方面的投入，因为这些对我们的未来至关重要。这一方针还主张，我们不应在穷人和中产阶级的背上平衡预算；要解决这个问题，所有人，包括最富有的美国人和最大的企业，都必须缴纳他们应缴的份额。
Now, during the debt ceiling debate, I had hoped to negotiate a compromise with the Speaker of the House that fulfilled these principles and achieved the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that leaders in both parties have agreed we need -- a grand bargain that would have strengthened our economy, instead of weakened it. Unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from a balanced package. What we agreed to instead wasn't all that grand. But it was a start -- roughly $1 trillion in cuts to domestic spending and defense spending. 在债务上限辩论期间，我曾希望与众议院议长协商达成一项符合这些原则的妥协方案，实现两党领袖一致认为需要的四万亿美元赤字削减——一项能增强而非削弱经济的重大协议。不幸的是，议长放弃了一揽子平衡方案。我们最终达成的协议并不那么"重大"。但这只是一个开始——大约一万亿美元的国内支出和国防支出削减。
Everyone knows we have to do more, and a special joint committee of Congress is assigned to find more deficit reduction. So, today, I'm laying out a set of specific proposals to finish what we started this summer -- proposals that live up to the principles I've talked about from the beginning. It's a plan that reduces our debt by more than $4 trillion, and achieves these savings in a way that is fair -- by asking everybody to do their part so that no one has to bear too much of the burden on their own. 人人都知道我们需要做更多，国会的一个特别联合委员会被指定负责寻找更多的赤字削减方案。因此，今天我提出一套具体的提案，以完成今年夏天开始的工作——这些提案体现了我从一开始就阐述的原则。这项计划将减少超过四万亿美元的债务，并以公平的方式实现这些节约——要求每个人尽自己的一份力，使任何人都无须独自承受过多的负担。
All told, this plan cuts $2 in spending for every dollar in new revenues. In addition to the $1 trillion in spending that we've already cut from the budget, our plan makes additional spending cuts that need to happen if we're to solve this problem. We reform agricultural subsidies -- subsidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don't grow. We make modest adjustments to federal retirement programs. We reduce by tens of billions of dollars the tax money that goes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 总体而言，这项计划每增加一美元收入就削减两美元支出。除了我们已经从预算中削减的一万亿美元支出外，我们的计划还进行了必须的额外支出削减。我们改革农业补贴——那些补贴很多时候付给大型农场，让他们种植并不种植的作物。我们对联邦退休计划做出适度调整。我们减少数百亿美元流向房利美和房地美的税收资金。
We also ask the largest financial firms -- companies saved by tax dollars during the financial crisis -- to repay the American people for every dime that we spent. And we save an additional $1 trillion as we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 我们还要求最大的金融机构——那些在金融危机中靠纳税人的钱获救的公司——偿还我们花出的每一分钱。随着伊拉克和阿富汗战争的结束，我们还将额外节省一万亿美元。
These savings are not only counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Republican on the House voted for. 这些节约不仅被计入我们的计划，也被纳入众议院几乎所有共和党人投票赞成的预算计划中。
Finally, this plan includes structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Keep in mind we've already included a number of reforms in the health care law, which will go a long way towards controlling these costs. But we're going to have to do a little more. This plan reduces wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments while changing some incentives that often lead to excessive health care costs. It makes prescriptions more affordable through faster approval of generic drugs. 最后，这项计划还包括结构性改革，以降低医疗保健和医疗补助等项目的成本。请记住，我们在医疗保健法中已经纳入了一系列改革措施，将在控制这些成本方面发挥重要作用。但我们还需要做得更多一点。这项计划减少浪费性补贴和错误支付，同时改变一些经常导致医疗成本过高的激励机制。它通过加快仿制药的审批来降低处方药价格。
We'll work with governors to make Medicaid more efficient and more accountable. And we'll change the way we pay for health care. Instead of just paying for procedures, providers will be paid more when they improve results -- and such steps will save money and improve care. 我们将与各州州长合作，使医疗补助更高效、更负责任。我们将改变医疗付费方式。不再仅仅为医疗程序付费，而是当医疗服务提供者改善了治疗效果时获得更多报酬——这些措施将节省资金并改善医疗服务。
These changes are phased in slowly to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over time. Because while we do need to reduce health care costs, I'm not going to allow that to be an excuse for turning Medicare into a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry. And I'm not going to stand for balancing the budget by denying or reducing health care for poor children or those with disabilities. So we will reform Medicare and Medicaid, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment that this country has kept for generations. 这些变革将逐步推行，以逐步加强医疗保健和医疗补助。因为虽然我们确实需要降低医疗成本，但我不会允许这成为将医疗保健变成券式计划的借口，让老年人任由保险业摆布。我也不会容忍通过削减贫困儿童或残疾人的医疗保健来平衡预算。因此，我们将改革医疗保健和医疗补助，但不会放弃这个国家世代坚守的根本承诺。
And by the way, that includes our commitment to Social Security. I've said before, Social Security is not the primary cause of our deficits, but it does face long-term challenges as our country grows older. And both parties are going to need to work together on a separate track to strengthen Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. 顺便说一下，这也包括我们对社会保障的承诺。我之前说过，社会保障不是赤字的主要原因，但随着国家人口老龄化，它确实面临长期挑战。两党需要在另一条轨道上携手合作，为我们的子孙后代加强社会保障。
So this is how we can reduce spending: by scouring the budget for every dime of waste and inefficiency, by reforming government spending, and by making modest adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid. But all these reductions in spending, by themselves, will not solve our fiscal problems. We can't just cut our way out of this hole. It's going to take a balanced approach. If we're going to make spending cuts -- many of which we wouldn't make if we weren't facing such large budget deficits -- then it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share. 这就是我们减少支出的方式：仔细审查预算中的每一分浪费和低效，改革政府支出，并对医疗保健和医疗补助做出适度调整。但所有这些支出削减本身并不能解决我们的财政问题。我们不能仅靠削减支出来走出这个困境。我们需要一种平衡的方式。如果我们要进行支出削减——其中许多削减，如果不是面临如此巨额的预算赤字，我们本不会做出——那么要求所有人缴纳他们应缴的份额，才是公平的。
You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to his credit, he made the point that we can't afford the kind of politics that says it's "my way or the highway." I was encouraged by that. Here's the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is "only one option." And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. 要知道，上周众议院议长约翰·博纳发表了一场关于经济的演讲。值得肯定的是，他指出我们承受不起那种"不按我的方式就拉倒"的政治做派。这让我深受鼓舞。但问题在于：在同一场演讲中，他也反对任何包含额外收入的赤字削减计划。他说——我在引用他的话——只有"一个选项"。而那个选项完全依赖削减开支。
That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America's technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. 那意味着大幅削减教育经费，放弃保持美国在二十一世纪技术优势所需的研究投入，任由高速公路、桥梁和机场等关键公共设施继续恶化。这将削弱我们的竞争力和赢得未来就业岗位的能力。这也意味着要求老年人、中产阶级和穷人做出牺牲，却对最富有的美国人和最大的企业一无所求。
So the Speaker says we can't have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. That's not smart. It's not right. If we're going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together. 所以议长说我们不能搞"不按我的方式就拉倒"，然后基本上说的就是——不按我的方式就拉倒。这不聪明。也不对。如果我们要履行责任，就必须共同来做。
Now, I'm proposing real, serious cuts in spending. When you include the $1 trillion in cuts I've already signed into law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our history. But they've got to be part of a larger plan that's balanced -- a plan that asks the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share, just like everybody else. 我提出的是真正的、严肃的支出削减。如果算上我已经签署成法的一万亿美元削减，这将是我国历史上最大规模的支出削减之一。但这必须是一个更大平衡计划的一部分——这个计划要求最幸运的人像其他人一样缴纳应缴的份额。
And that's why this plan eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations -- tax breaks that small businesses and middle-class families don't get. And if tax reform doesn't get done, this plan asks the wealthiest Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they paid during the 1990s, before the Bush tax cuts. 正因如此，这项计划取消主要惠及最富有纳税人和最大企业的税收漏洞——那些小企业和中产家庭无法享受的税收优惠。如果税制改革未能完成，这项计划要求最富有的美国人恢复到上世纪九十年代、即布什减税之前的税率水平。
I promise it's not because anybody looks forward to the prospects of raising taxes or paying more taxes. I don't. In fact, I've cut taxes for the middle class and for small businesses, and through the American Jobs Act, we'd cut taxes again to promote hiring and put more money into the pockets of people. But we can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy -- rates, by the way, that were meant to be temporary. Back when these first -- these tax cuts, back in 2001, 2003, were being talked about, they were talked about temporary measures. 我保证，这绝不是因为有人期待加税或多缴税款。我也不期待。事实上，我已经为中产阶级和小企业减税，通过《美国就业法案》，我们将再次减税以促进就业，让人民口袋里有更多钱。但我们无法承受这些专为富人设定的低税率——顺便说一句，这些税率本就是临时性的。早在2001年和2003年首次讨论这些减税措施时，它们就被说成是临时性措施。
We can't afford them when we're running these big deficits. 在我们面临如此巨额赤字的当下，我们承受不起这些优惠。
Now, I am also ready to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform our entire tax code, to get rid of the decades of accumulated loopholes, special interest carve-outs, and other tax expenditures that stack the deck against small business owners and ordinary families who can't afford Washington lobbyists or fancy accountants. Our tax code is more than 10,000 pages long. If you stack up all the volumes, they're almost five feet tall. 我也愿意与民主党和共和党合作，改革整个税法，消除数十年积累的漏洞、特殊利益豁免以及其他税收支出——这些东西让没有能力雇佣华盛顿说客或精明会计师的小企业主和普通家庭处于不利地位。我们的税法长达一万多页。如果把所有卷册堆起来，差不多有五英尺高。
That means that how much you pay often depends less on what you make and more on how well you can game the system, and that's especially true of the corporate tax code. 这意味着你缴多少税，往往不取决于你挣多少，而更取决于你能多巧妙地钻制度的空子，企业税法领域尤其如此。
We've got one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but it's riddled with exceptions and special interest loopholes. So some companies get out paying a lot of taxes, while the rest of them end up having to foot the bill. And this makes our entire economy less competitive and our country a less desirable place to do business. 我国的企业税率位居世界最高之列，但到处都是例外和特殊利益漏洞。因此，一些公司几乎不缴什么税，而其余的却不得不替它们买单。这使我们的整个经济竞争力下降，也让我国成为不那么理想的经商之地。
That has to change. Our tax code shouldn't give an advantage to companies with the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest in the United States of America and create jobs in the United States of America. And we can lower the corporate rate if we get rid of all these special deals. 这必须改变。我们的税法不应给拥有最好关系的说客的公司以优势。它应该给那些在美国投资、在美国创造就业的公司以优势。如果我们取消所有这些特殊交易，就能降低企业税率。
So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive. But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit. That has to be part of the formula. And any reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. 因此，我已准备好，也渴望与民主党和共和党合作改革税法，使其更简单、更公平，让美国更具竞争力。但任何改革方案都必须增加收入以帮助缩小赤字。这必须成为方案的一部分。任何改革还应遵循另一条简单的原则：中产家庭不应比百万富翁和亿万富翁缴纳更高的税率。这很直接明了，难以反驳。沃伦·巴菲特的秘书不应比沃伦·巴菲特本人缴纳更高的税率。这没有任何正当理由。
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. 在美利坚合众国，一个年收入五万美元的教师、护士或建筑工人缴纳的税率高于年收入五千万美元的人，这是不对的。任何人说我们不能修改税法来纠正这一点，任何人签署了某种誓约要保护每一个税收漏洞终生不变，都应该被点名批评。
They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they're pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. 他们应该为这种不公平辩护——解释为什么在金融市场上年赚五千万美元的人只需缴纳百分之十五的税，而年赚五万美元的教师却要缴纳更高的税率。他们应该为此做出交代。如果他们发誓要维持这种不公平，他们应该记住，据我所知，唯一真正重要的誓言是我们宣誓维护宪法时所作的承诺。
Now, we're already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just "class warfare." I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it's just the right the thing to do. I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it's time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations. 我们已经听到那些税收漏洞的惯常辩护者说，这不过是"阶级战争"。我拒绝接受这种说法——要求对冲基金经理缴纳与水管工或教师相同的税率是阶级战争。我认为这不过是做正确的事。我相信美国中产阶级——数十年来承受了持续不断的压力——相信现在该为他们而战，就像说客和某些议员为保护亿万富翁和大企业的特殊待遇而战那样努力。
Nobody wants to punish success in America. What's great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -- the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That's great. All I'm saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn't get a better deal than ordinary families get. 没有人想要惩罚美国的成功者。这个国家的伟大之处在于我们相信人人都能成功，人人都有权尝试——我们中任何一个人都可以创业、有了创意就能成为百万富翁或亿万富翁。这是一片充满机遇的土地。这很好。我只想说的是，那些已经做得很好的人，包括我自己，应该缴纳我们应缴的份额，回馈那个让我们成功成为可能的国度。我们不应该比普通家庭获得更优惠的待遇。
And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future. 我相信大多数富有的美国人会同意——如果他们知道这有助于经济增长并应对威胁未来的债务。
It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion. So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we're going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can't afford to do both. 归结起来就是：我们必须确定优先次序。两党都同意我们需要减少相同数额的赤字——四万亿美元。那么我们要做出什么选择来实现这一目标？要么要求最富有的美国人缴纳他们应缴的税款，要么就不得不要求老年人为医疗保健支付更多费用。我们无法两者兼顾。
Either we gut education and medical research, or we've got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don't get. We can't afford to do both. 要么削减教育和医学研究的经费，要么就必须改革税法，使最赚钱的企业不得不放弃其他公司享受不到的税收漏洞。我们无法两者兼顾。
This is not class warfare. It's math. The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we're not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We've got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We've got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. 这不是阶级战争。这是数学。钱总得有个来源。如果我们不愿要求那些获得了非凡成就的人帮助美国缩小赤字，而我们又试图达到四万亿美元这同一个目标，那么逻辑和数学告诉我们，其他所有人就必须承担多得多的份额：我们必须把全部重担压在中产阶级和穷人身上。我们必须缩减那些一直帮助经济增长的投资。
We've got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling. 我们只能接受二流的公路、二流的桥梁、二流的机场，以及破败的学校。
That's unacceptable to me. That's unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable. 这对我来说不可接受。对美国人民来说不可接受。在我的任期内，这不会发生。我不会支持——我不会支持——任何把缩小赤字的全部重担压在普通美国人身上的计划。我也将否决任何改变医疗保健受益人待遇、却不通过要求最富有的美国人或最大的企业缴纳应缴份额来增加实质性收入的法案。我们不会达成损害最弱势群体利益的单方面协议。
None of the changes I'm proposing are easy or politically convenient. It's always more popular to promise the moon and leave the bill for after the next election or the election after that. That's been true since our founding. George Washington grappled with this problem. 我所提议的变革没有一项是轻松的或在政治上便利的。许下空头支票、把账单留给下次选举或再下次选举之后去处理，总是更受欢迎。自建国以来就是如此。乔治·华盛顿就曾为此苦恼。
He said, "Towards the payment of debts, there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; [and] no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." He understood that dealing with the debt is -- these are his words -- "always a choice of difficulties." But he also knew that public servants weren't elected to do what was easy; they weren't elected to do what was politically advantageous. It's our responsibility to put country before party. It's our responsibility to do what's right for the future. 他说："为偿还债务，必须有收入；要有收入，就必须有税收；而且无法设计出不是或多或少不便和令人不快的税收。"他明白应对债务——这是他的原话——"始终是一种在困难中选择"。但他也知道，公仆当选不是为了做容易的事；当选不是为了做政治上有利可图的事。我们有责任将国家利益置于党派之上。我们有责任为未来做正确的事。
And that's what this debate is about. It's not about numbers on a ledger; it's not about figures on a spreadsheet. It's about the economic future of this country, and it's about whether we will do what it takes to create jobs and growth and opportunity while facing up to the legacy of debt that threatens everything we've built over generations. 这才是这场辩论的核心。它不是账簿上的数字，不是电子表格上的数据。它关乎这个国家的经济未来，关乎我们是否有勇气采取行动创造就业、增长和机遇，同时直面威胁我们世代建设成果的债务遗留问题。
And it's also about fairness. It's about whether we are, in fact, in this together, and we're looking out for one another. We know what's right. It's time to do what's right. 它也关乎公平。它关乎我们是否真的同舟共济，是否在彼此关照。我们知道什么是对的。是时候做对的事了。
Thank you very much. 非常感谢。
