Tea Party should be in China

It's kind of a misplacement for the Tea Party in this country. What's needed in the US is a high tax to pay for its wars and social programs, and of course more spending on modernizing infrastructures. Meanwhile, the FED should reign in monetary expansion so that the world inflation could be controlled. On the other hand, however, China should be cutting taxes or restructuring its state-local tax system to better suit its people's needs. Sadly, two political systems are both resisting to the right solution to the linked problem. The ways both countries are adopting to deal with their current difficulties are leading them down a vicious circle. It's potentially destructive to see the trend continue. Alas, if only the Tea Party could more to the other side of the ocean!

Burried Bill and Worsening US-China relations

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats abandoned the effort to pass an energy/climate bill. In the current political climate, the Democrats neither have the will nor the capacity to see through such a bill, though they barely got the health care and financial reform passed. Such failure has deeper international impact, particularly US-China relations.

When Obama began his presidency, one of the pillar of his administration's China policy was climate cooperation. Since both trade and energy secretaries are Chinese Americans, US government has much better chance of improving relations with China on climate change and clean energy fronts. However, the Great Recession reversed the trend towards better relations. Though initial coordination on stimulus measures marked a good star, things soon worsened due to the constrained domestic political and economic conditions. Both countries need to make tough decisions to save the economy, particularly the job market. The economic imperative overwhelmed and re-prioritized the climate issue and the confrontational tone rapidly diminished cooperative prospect.

Since the new foundation was not established, the old habit catches up. Cold War thinking and changing geopolitical scale (NK) tend to create more tensions than China and US could ameliorate (TW).

Now, the climate bill is temp dead, the force pushing for change is severely challenged at a time when global warming is the most conspicuous. Also, exchange rate, trade surplus, Tibet, south China sea etc. are piling up to weight on the ties between the two countries. It's hard not to imagine the worse case scenario. China's economic growth will inevitably slow down in the near future, and America's long term structural change is no where near complete. So turbulence will be constant and risk management never be more important than now.

US and China must find a mutually trustful ground and no other is better than future oriented energy and climate cooperation. To make that work, China needs to find a way to invest in the US market, jump-start the life-style change as well as consumption of clean product. And the US will have to stop making China the scapegoat of its own economic problems and make compromises on the terms of emission and tech transfers. Only working together on peaceful and mutually beneficial projects, can we build trust and eliminate the risk of conflict.

美国联邦与州权冲突的因果

美国作为一个联邦制国家，联邦与州的权力划分是一个不断变动的难题。随着现代国家的复杂化和专业化，联邦管辖范围不断扩张、权力也不断扩大，但各州还是保留了很多重要的职责和权力。尽管联邦与州权冲突时有发生，发生在奥巴马政府至今仅一年半任期内的此类冲突仍然颇为引人注目。

奥巴马上台不久便着手进行医疗体系改革，力图在美国实现发达国家普遍拥有的全民医保。在没有任何国会共和党议员支持的情况下，打了折扣的改革法案终于在今年3月获得通过，但随后有14个州的检察长（除一人外皆为共和党人）到联邦法院控告该法案违宪。他们的理由是医改法案中有强制购买医疗保险条款，而美国宪法中却从未授权联邦政府此种权力。由于宪法第十修正案规定宪法未授予联邦政府而又未禁止各州行使的权力由各州保留，这些检察长们的诉状指明医改侵犯了州权。当然，国会医改法案的法律基础实际上是国会规范全国商业、增进公民福利的权力，即使目前非常保守的最高法院也不太可能推翻该法案。

可是保守的最高法院却可以在美国宪法第二修正案上做文章。尽管在2008年6月的判决中，最高法院援引第二修正案推翻了美国首都哥伦比亚特区的禁枪令，确认了公民为自卫而持枪的权利，但特区作为联邦领地与各州的地位并不相同。而修正案中授予州民兵拥有枪支的权利又与普通公民持枪有本质区别。本来，州及地方政府禁枪与否不归联邦规范，但在今年6月底的判决中，最高法院又判定芝加哥市的禁枪令违宪。这样，第二修正案进一步突破了联邦领地的范畴，从而剥夺了州和地方禁枪的权利。作为回敬，芝加哥市政府马上颁布了极为严厉的持枪规定，但无论如何，在美国枪支泛滥的情况下，个别地方的禁枪规定是改变不了持枪犯罪居高不下的现状的。

一波未平一波又起，4月20日墨西哥湾石油泄漏事件爆发。为防止类似事件再度发生，5月底联邦政府内政部发文暂停深海石油钻探6个月，以便检查设施、实行新的安全条例并等待总统漏油事件委员会的调查结果。尽管被影响的钻井平台只有33个，还不到墨西哥湾全部钻井平台的百分之一，路易斯安那州的官员们还是大张旗鼓地出来反对，声称此禁令会影响到二十多万与石油钻探有关的工作人员，还会导致州税收减少、财政紧张。一家深海石油钻探公司旋即将内政部长萨拉查告上法庭。一个月后，一名持有深海钻井公司股票的联邦法官判禁令无效，经上诉后，新奥尔良的上诉法院维持原判，迫使内政部考虑重新发布一个范围缩小了的停钻令。

与此同时，更具挑战性也更为复杂的移民问题浮出水面。4月23日，亚利桑那州州长简·布雷维尔签署了州内极为严厉的移民法案，其中对携带移民身份文件，雇用非法劳工，贯彻联邦移民条例等作了严格规定。法案中最有争议的条款是要求州和地方警察检查任何可疑者的移民身份，这在以前被认为是联邦移民机关的职权范围，而且这种规定也很容易导致种族歧视和滥用警力。前几年也有类似法案在亚利桑那州议会通过，但都被民主党籍州长纳波利塔诺在最后关头否决了。奥巴马上台后请纳波利塔诺做了国土安全部部长，新上台的共和党州长布雷维尔终于放该法案过关。此案一出，分裂效应顿时显现，既有多个州准备跟进相关移民立法，又有很多地方和组织宣布经济上抵制亚利桑那州。有声势浩大的支持人权和移民改革的游行，也有民调显示超过半数美国人支持打击非法移民。尽管奥巴马答应增派国民卫队保卫边境、打击毒品犯罪和非法移民，亚利桑那州仍然寸步不让，坚持7月29日准时执行该法。奥巴马政府陷于金融改革法案在国会的苦斗，一时无力推动全面移民改革法案，便由美国司法部出面于7月4日将亚利桑那州告上联邦法庭，称其干涉专属联邦负责的移民法规，并要求禁止该法实行。但直到目前还没有该法案会被阻止执行的迹象。

以上联邦与州之间林林总总的冲突虽然议题不同、起因各异，却反映出美国经济危机爆发以来不断加深的社会矛盾和冲突。奥巴马政府面对危机所采取的内外政策和改革方案由于各种原因非但未能取得预期的效果，反而遭到了各种保守主义利益集团的强烈抵制。在国会两院中，共和党处于劣势，难以左右奥巴马的施政方向，于是乎医改、禁枪、钻井、移民等形形色色的问题就以地方与中央冲突的形式表现了出来。这种情况在年底的中期选举之后还有可能加剧。从2004年以来的三次地方选举中，民主党在各级政府和议会中的席位都在增加， 达到了近60%的多数。但很多新增席位并不稳固，极有可能在今年底的中期选举中易手。如此，则各州和地方的政策导向将会与联邦相左，即便民主党不会失去国会多数，奥巴马政府的日子也不会好过。

长远来看，医疗体制、金融体制等重大改革法案的通过将权力进一步向联邦集中，这不仅与信息技术进步造成的去中心化相悖，更限制了州和地方政府的自由裁量权。这些进步主义的政策究竟对社会保障、金融监管和政府预算有何重大影响，只能等时间来回答了。不过联邦与州的摩擦不会影响各州之间对联邦资源的争夺。就眼日益紧张的州财政而言，索取联邦拨款和财政支援与诘难奥巴马政府以获取政治筹码至少是同等重要的。