口译：美国总统奥巴马关于美国财政状况的讲话(中英)

英语自学网

http://"http://www.tudou.com/v/fAJqKX6JbZE/v.swf
US President Obama’s Address to Nation on U.S. Economy
25 July 2011
美国总统奥巴马向全国发表有关美国财政状况的讲话
2011年7月25日
Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.
晚上好。今晚，我想和你们谈谈我们在华盛顿就国家的债务问题所展开的辩论——一场直接影响到所有美国人生活的辩论。
For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
10年来，我们的支出一直高于我们的收入。政府在2000年曾有过预算盈余，但这笔钱没有被用来偿还国债，而被用于数万亿美元的新的减税计划，此外，两场战争和一项昂贵的处方药计划又增加了我国的超前支出。
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more — on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
因此，在我就任总统那年，财政赤字已接近突破一万亿美元。更糟糕的是，经济衰退意味着收入减少，同时却要求我们进一步增加开支——为中产阶层减税以刺激经济；发放失业保险金；资助州政府以避免更多的教师、消防队员和警察被裁员。这些紧急措施也增加了财政赤字。
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -- the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
每个家庭都知道，持有少量的信用卡债务不会有问题。但如果我们再这样继续下去，日益增长的债务就会导致工作机会减少并严重损害经济。越来越多的纳税人的钱将用于偿还国债利息。公司企业将不太愿意到一个不能做到收支平衡的国家开展业务和雇佣员工。利率可能上涨，危及每个贷款的人——有房屋抵押贷款的房主、有大学学费贷款的学生、想扩大经营的街角小店。而且，我们将不会有足够的资金投资于能够创造就业机会的教育和基础建设部门，也不能为联邦老年医保和联邦贫困医保等重要项目提供资金。
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
由于两党对导致这个问题的种种决策都不是无可挑剔，因此两党也都有责任来解决这个问题。几个月来，我们一直在努力这样做。我不想赘述每项计划或提案的具体细节，但这场辩论基本上围绕着两种不同的方式展开。
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.
第一种方式主张量入为出，对政府开支进行严肃的、历史性的削减。让我们把国内开支削减到自德怀特·艾森豪威尔总统任期以来的最低水平。让我们将五角大楼的国防开支削减数千亿美元。让我们砍掉联邦老年医保等医保计划中存在浪费和造成欺诈的部分——同时稍作调整，使联邦老年医保计划能继续为子孙后代提供保障。最后，让我们要求最富裕的美国人和最大的公司企业放弃一些他们所享受的税收优惠和特殊减免。
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.
这种均衡的方式要求每个人都做出一点贡献，但并不要求任何人做出太大的牺牲。这将使财政赤字降低4万亿美元左右，并让我们步入偿清债务的轨道。这类削减不会太突然，以致拖累我国经济，或阻止我们帮助小企业和中产阶层家庭尽快重新站稳脚跟。
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.
这种方式还是跨党派的。虽然我所在的党派的很多成员对痛苦的削减措施感到不满，但将有足够多的成员愿意接受削减措施，只要大家都公平地分担这一负担。尽管共和党人可能希望看到幅度更大的削减而不想增加任何税收，但参议院中也有很多人表示：“是的，我愿意将政治因素放在一边来考虑这个方式，因为我所关心的是解决这个问题。”值得肯定的是，共和党籍的众议院议长约翰·博纳几周来曾就这一方式与我共同努力。
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -- an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about -- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.
这种均衡的方式现在未能走上立法轨道的唯一原因在于国会中有相当一部分共和党议员坚持推行另外一种方式——一种只削减开支的方式——一种不要求最富裕的美国人或最大的公司企业做出任何贡献的方式。由于这种方式不要求那些收入最高的人做任何贡献，因而只能通过更严厉地削减我们都关心的项目来减少赤字——这类削减措施将加重工薪家庭的负担。
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
因此，目前的辩论并非在于我们是否需要作出艰难的选择。民主党人和共和党人在我们需要减少赤字的数额方面有共识。辩论的焦点在于应如何达到这一目标。大多数美国人，不分党派，都不明白我们为什么要求老年公民为自己的老年医疗保险多付钱，却不要求为高层主管提供专用飞机的企业或石油公司放弃其他公司并不享有的税收优惠；我们为什么要求学生为他们的大学教育承担更高的费用，却不要求对冲基金经理不再按低于他们秘书的税率纳税；我们为什么要大幅削减用于教育和清洁能源的资金，却不要求像我这种收入的人放弃我们并不需要也没有提出要求的税收减免。
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -- things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
这样做是不对的，也是不公平的。我们大家都要求我们的政府量入为出，但作为一个国家，仍然有一些必须支出的费用，如道路和桥梁之类的工程、气象卫星和食品检查、以及退伍军人的服务项目和医学研究。
            
            

enthree

And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -- millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:
请记住，在一种均衡的方式下，年收入在25万美元以下的98%的美国人承担的税负不会增加。一点都不会。事实上，我想延长降低工薪家庭工资税的期限。我们所说的均衡方式是要求在过去十年中收入增加最多的美国人——百万富翁和亿万富翁——分担其他所有人都必须作出的牺牲。我认为这些爱国的美国人都愿意作出贡献。事实上，过去几十年来，每当两党一致通过减少赤字的协议时，他们都作出了贡献。在首次达成一项协议时，我的一位前任在为均衡的方式提出论据时曾这样说：
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”
“你们愿意让那些目前没有付出他们公平的一份的人缴纳更多的税款来增加国库收入从而降低赤字和利率，还是愿意接受更高的预算赤字、更高的利率和更高的失业率？我想你们都知道该怎么回答。”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -- an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.
这些话是罗纳德?里根说的。但今天，众议院很多共和党议员都拒绝考虑这种均衡的方式——尽管不仅里根总统遵循了这种方式，第一位布什总统、克林顿总统、我本人以及美国参议院很多民主党和共和党议员都遵循了这种方式。为此，我们现在处于一种僵持的局面。
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -- a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.
今天，这种僵局之所以如此危险，是因为它与被称作国债上限的东西挂了钩，政府以外的大多数人过去也许从未听说过这一术语。
Understand -- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.
需要澄清的是，提高国债上限并不是允许国会花更多的钱。它只是使我们的国家有能力支付国会已经累积起来的账单。过去提高国债上限是例行公事。自1950年代以来，国会总是予以通过，每一任总统都签过字。里根总统签过18次，乔治?W?布什总统签过7次。我必须在下个星期二，即8月2日签字，否则，我们将无法支付我们所有的账单。
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.
令人遗憾的是，过去几周来，众议院共和党议员实质上是说，要他们投票防止美国历史上首次债务违约发生，唯一途径是我们其他人都同意他们提出的仅仅大幅削减支出的方式。
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.
如果这种情况发生了，我们违约了，我们就没有足够的钱来支付我们所有的账单，其中包括每月社保支票、退伍军人福利以及我们同数以千计的企业签订的政府合同。
For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -- this one caused almost entirely by Washington.
我们国家的AAA信贷评级将有史以来首次下调，使世界各地的投资者怀疑美国是否仍是一个值得投资的目的地。信用卡、房贷和汽车贷款利率将会飙升，这等于是大幅增加美国人民的税负。我们将会面临引发深度经济危机的危险，而这样一场危机将纯粹是由联邦政府造成的。
So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
因此，债务欠付将是这场辩论带来的草率和不负责任的后果。共和党领导人说，他们同意我们必须避免债务欠付。但众议院博纳议长今天公布的新方式，即以临时提高国债上限换取削减支出的方式，将迫使我们在短短6个月之后再次面临债务欠付的威胁。换言之，这样做并不解决问题。
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.
首先，延长债务上限6个月可能不足以避免信用降级和所有的美国人因此将不得不支付的较高利率。我们知道我们要做什么才能减少赤字；把破罐子踢向前方因而危及经济是毫无意义的。
But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.
但这种方式还有一个更大的危险。根据我们在过去几个星期里所看到的情况，我们知道6个月之后会是什么局面。众议院将再次拒绝避免违约，除非我们其他的人接受他们提出的仅仅削减支出的方式。他们仍将拒绝要求最富有的美国人放弃他们的税收减免。他们还将要求对像联邦老年医保这样的计划进行苛刻的削减。美国经济将再一次被用作质押，除非他们如愿以偿。
This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.
这绝不是管理地球上最伟大的国家的方式。这是我们以前从来没有玩过的一个危险的游戏，我们现在也玩不起，尤其是在就业机会和许多家庭的生计受到威胁的时候。我们不能让美国人民成为华盛顿政治斗争的牺牲品。
            
            

entwo

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.
国会现在只剩下一个星期的时间可以采取行动，取得进展的途径仍然存在。参议院已推出一项避免欠付的计划，这为削减赤字做了首付，并确保我们在6个月后不需要旧调重弹。
I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -- and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.
我认为这种方式要好很多，尽管真正的赤字削减仍需要我们成功应对福利计划和税收改革方面的严峻挑战。我已经向两党领导人表示，无论采用哪一种方式，他们必须在今后几天里拿出一个能够通过国会两院的公平妥协议案——一个我能签署的议案。我相信我们能够达成这个妥协。尽管我们有分歧，共和党领导人和我以前曾找到过共同点。我相信，两党会有足够的成员最终把政治因素搁置一旁，帮助我们取得进展。
Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?
我意识到国会的许多新成员和我在诸多问题上看法并不一致。但是，我们每个人都是被美国人民出于某些同样的原因选举出来的。是的，许多人都希望政府开始量入为出。许多人厌倦了似乎总是对美国中产阶级不利而对富有的少数人有利的这样一种体制。但是，你知道人们最厌倦的是什么吗？
They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.
他们厌倦的是一个妥协意味着丢人的城市。他们终日辛劳，许多人省吃俭用，只不过是为了餐桌上有饭吃。这些美国人晚上回到家，精疲力尽，打开电视看新闻时，看到的是华盛顿千篇一律的党派争斗闹剧。他们看到的是领导者似乎无法坐在一起，采取必要措施让普通美国人的生活有一点点改善。他们对此感到恼火。他们理应恼火。
The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.
是的，美国人民投票选举了分权的政府，但他们没有投票选举一个功能失常的政府。所以，我吁请大家发出你们的声音。如果你们希望以一种均衡的方式来减少赤字，让你们的国会议员知道。如果你们认为我们可以通过妥协来解决这个问题，请发出这个信息。
America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”
但是，建国以来美国一直演绎着一个如何妥协的伟大实验。由于民主国家由多个种族和宗教构成，每一种信仰和观点都受到欢迎，我们屡次验证了建国原则中的一个核心命题：合众为一。我们对当前的问题进行激烈和充满热忱的辩论，但是从奴隶制到战争，从公民自由到经济公正，我们一直努力把杰斐逊的一段话作为座右铭：“每个人都不能在所有的事情上随心所欲——没有这种相互的交换，我们是毫不相关的个体，而不是一个社会。”
History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.
历史上有很多人坚守僵化的意识形态，拒绝听取不同意见，但这些人并不存在于我们的记忆之中。我们所记得的是这样一些美国人，他们把国家置于自我之上，抛弃个人恩怨而追求公众利益。我们所记得的美国人在最困难的时刻维护了国家的统一；他们放弃了个人功名和党派利益，组成一个更美好的合众国。
That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth -- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.
这就是我们所记得的人。我们现在就需要做这样的人。这是一个举世瞩目的时刻。因此，让我们抓住这一时刻，让大家看到为什么美国仍然是地球上最伟大的国家——不仅仅是因为我们仍然信守诺言、履行义务，而且因为我们仍然可以作为一个民族团结起来。
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
谢谢大家，愿主保佑你们，愿主保佑美利坚合众国。