政府花錢大手大腳，實際造成對窮人的“統計謀殺”

01.翻譯

 

拜登政府號稱“相信科學”。 但是涉及數學的時候，就不那麽重要了。存在一個模糊的概念，即各種大筆資金，似乎都隻是“億萬”級別。所以這裏使用漂亮整數做些，即使是政府和國會裏的進步派(progressives)，也能看得懂的小算術。

 

美國現在大概3.3億人。假設平均每個家庭3.3口人（媽媽、爸爸、一兩個孩子），那麽就是大約有1億個家庭。因此，平均而言，每萬億美元政府花費，相當於每個家庭要為此支出10,000美元。最終，是由他們繳納這大筆的稅款。

 

喬·拜登總統不久前簽署了一項“基礎設施”法案，該法案將耗資約1.2萬億美元。這意味著平均到每個家庭，就是要支付12,000美元。

 

算一下，如果一個人拿著聯邦最低工資（每小時7.25美元）全職工作一年（約1,800小時），那麽他的年收入約為13,050美元。好消息來了，也就是說（支付掉1,2000美元）還有1,050美元用於吃飯、房租、能源和其他“奢侈品”。

 

不過不止這些，民主黨人想要一項“人性化基礎設施(human infrastructure)”法案，他們最初提出，該法案將耗資3.5萬億美元，也就是將平均成本提高到45,000美元每個家庭。對不起，水管工老李、圖書管理員老劉，今年就別想加勒比遊輪旅遊這檔子事了。

 

但還不止！我們仍然需要支付社會保險金、醫療保險金、國防、福利、失業保險、現有債務的利息，以及電動汽車補貼和藝術及人文基金會等一些雜項。這些加起來大約又是一個3.5萬億美元。所以，在之前基礎上，要再加個35,000美元。就暫時不要去想買特斯拉的事了。

 

等於變相沒收普通美國人的資產，以滿足（進步主義政客代表）伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)、伊麗莎白·沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)和亞曆山大·奧卡西奧·科爾特斯(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC)等人的願望和心血來潮——好的、壞的或無關緊要的——產生體現財富與健康之間相關性的，“收入效應”。

 

我們知道，富裕社區的人口死亡率低於貧困社區，這也並非巧合。在地方層麵尤為明顯：位於舊金山北部的加州馬林縣，在健康和人均收入方麵均排名第一，而該州較貧困的地區，例如中央山穀，在健康指標方麵得分就很低。

 

因此，通過稅收或監管調控，帶來社區財富減少，實際會導致增加貧困社群人群的健康風險。因為更富有的人，能夠購買更好的醫療保健，享受更營養的飲食，並通常過著更輕鬆舒適的生活。而減少財富，會對健康產生不利影響——例如，與壓力相關的問題的發生率增加，包括潰瘍、高血壓、心髒病、抑鬱和自殺。

 

油價就是一個例子：為了減少空氣汙染，加州的法規要求，煉油廠隻能根據州裏的規定生產指定的一些混合物，導致該州的油價高於美國其他地區。短時間內，拜登政府的政策已經導致減少石油供應，推高油價。這不成比例地影響了窮人。

 

盡管很難準確量化死亡率與收入減少之間的關係，但有學術研究表明，即使保守估計，大約政府每增加500萬至1000萬美元的監管成本，就會通過這種間接的“收入效應”，造成1人的額外死亡。

 

因此，保守地說，每萬億美元的政府預算增加，相當於會造成100,000人的死亡。這些死亡原本可以避免，其實是監管機構“在安全方麵犯錯”，應該計算成政府浪費性開支的實際成本，因此可以把此類政府行為稱為，“統計謀殺”。

 

人們應該有盡量多的自由做出個人決定的選擇權，自主決定自己的飲食、購買什麽樣的汽車最安全性、是否安裝太陽能電池板、選擇什麽社區居住、是否支付托兒費用以及谘詢藥物和酒精的安全問題。

 

政府拿走越來越多的本應交給個人自由支配的資金，等於擠占了人們可以私人決定的，用於解決對他們來說最重要的問題的生活支出。

 

這種政府篡奪的現象，對窮人的影響比對富人的影響更大。因為低收入消費者，本來擁有的可自由支配的收入就少。歸根結底，越不富裕的人安全性越是下降。

 

總而言之，在前麵提到的這些新政府預算支出之前，我們的國債已經接近30萬億美元。平攤到每個家庭，等於是每戶300,000美元。這些還是在支付房貸、車貸和學貸之外。用已故的伊利諾伊州共和黨參議員埃弗雷特·德克森(Everett Dirksen)的話來說，這裏撒一萬億，那裏撒一萬億，“很快你就會談論真缺錢的問題”。

 

讓我們希望沒有人告訴拜登，一萬億會帶來什麽後果。

 

【作者簡介】湯姆·翰佛(Tom Hafer)先生是設計攔截導彈、無人機係統的專家。亨利·I·米勒(Henry I. Miller)，醫生和分子生物學家，太平洋研究所高級研究員；為FDA生物技術辦公室的創始主任。他們本科都畢業於麻省理工學院。文章經作者授權“陌上美國”獨家翻譯並轉發原文。

 

02.原文

 

首發issuesinsights，經作者授權獨家翻譯並發布全文：

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/12/20/math-for-demmies/

 

The Biden administration “Believes in Science.” But math – not so much. It seems to have a fuzzy concept of large sums of money as all being just “bazillions.” So here is a little arithmetic using nice round numbers that even the administration and congressional progressives can follow.

 

There are about 330 million people in the United States. So, if we say that the average family is 3.3 people (mom, dad, one or two kids), then we have about 100 million families. So, on average, each trillion dollars costs each family $10,000. And ultimately, it’s they who pay the lion’s share of taxes.

 

President Joe Biden recently signed into law an “infrastructure” bill that will cost about $1.2 trillion. That means that each family will pay, on average, $12,000. A person working full time for a year (about 1,800 hours) at the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) makes about $13,050. So good news! You get to keep $1,050 of that for food, rent, energy, and other “luxuries.”

 

But now the Democrats want a “human infrastructure” bill, which, as they first proposed, would have cost $3.5 trillion, which boosts per-family costs to $45,000. Sorry, Josephine the Plumber and Lewis the Librarian, no Caribbean cruise for you this year.

 

But there’s more! We still have to pay for Social Security, Medicare, national defense, welfare, unemployment, interest on the existing debt, and a few sundries such as electric vehicle subsidies and endowments for the arts and humanities. Those add up to about another $3.5 trillion. So, add another $35,000 to the above. Don’t go out and buy that Tesla just yet.

 

The confiscation of resources from ordinary Americans to satisfy the aspirations and whims – good, bad, or indifferent – of the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exerts an “income effect” that reflects the correlation between wealth and health. It is no coincidence that richer societies or segments of the population have lower mortality rates than poorer ones. This is demonstrable at the local level as well: California’s Marin County, just north of San Francisco, ranks No. 1 in both health and per capita income while the poorer parts of the state, such as the Central Valley, score poorly on measures of health.

 

Depriving communities of wealth via taxation or regulation, therefore, increases their health risks because wealthier individuals are able to purchase better health care, enjoy more nutritious diets, and lead generally less stressful lives. Thus, reducing wealth has adverse health effects – for example, an increased incidence of stress-related problems, including ulcers, hypertension, heart attacks, depression, and suicides. Gasoline is an example: To reduce air pollution, California’s regulations require that refiners produce custom blends for the state, so prices are higher there than in the rest of the continental United States. And shorter-term, the Biden administration’s actions have diminished the supply of oil, raising gas prices. This disproportionately affects the poor. 

 

Although it is difficult to quantify precisely the relationship between mortality and the deprivation of income, academic studies suggest as a conservative estimate that approximately every $5 million to $10 million of regulatory costs, for example, will induce one additional fatality through this indirect “income effect.” Therefore, each trillion dollars equates to, conservatively, 100,000 additional deaths. Because avoidable deaths are the real costs of regulators’ “erring on the side of safety” and superfluous, wasteful government programs, such government actions have been dubbed “statistical murder.”

 

People should be as free as possible to make private decisions determining their diets, how safe of a car to buy, whether to install solar panels, the type of neighborhood in which to live, whether to pay for child care, and counseling for drug and alcohol problems. The government’s usurping more and more of what should be discretionary spending crowds out expenditures people would make in their private lives that address issues that are most important to them.

 

This crowding-out phenomenon affects the poor more than the wealthy because lower-income consumers have less discretionary income to begin with. The bottom line is that the less wealthy become less safe.

 

To sum up, we already have nearly $30 trillion in debt before all the new spending described above. That comes out to $300,000 per family. That’s before paying your mortgage, car payments, and college loans. A trillion here, a trillion there, and “pretty soon you’re talking real money,” in the words of the late Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen.

 

Let’s hope nobody tells Joe what comes after a trillion.

 

Tom Hafer developed systems for neutralizing rockets and drones. He currently coaches teenage robotics teams. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. They were undergraduates together at MIT.

 

 

訂閱陌上油管 https://www.youtube.com/c/MOSHANGUSA?