美总统：房地产投资收益超10%政府就出手

提问者：副总统先生，在共和党的初选辩论时，你说美国的许多无家可归的人是精神病患者。根据政府的估计，这些无家可归者在250,0003,000,000人之间，包括无家的工薪族和他们的孩子。你今天晚上承诺要对美国社会中无发言权的这部分人做些什么？

布什：我想让《麦金尼法》得到全额拨款，那会对无家可归者提供住房帮助。这位州长的夫人积极参与帮助无家可归者的活动，但这不是政府行为，这些人只是对此充满爱心并身体力行。政府有政府的责任，那就是给《麦金尼法》全额拨款。当然，《麦金尼法》也号召在某种情况下把一些闲置的军营提供给无住房者居住，所以，我认为我们的做法是正确的。顺便说一下，我认为这不是个民主党的观点，或共和党的观点，或自由的观点，或保守的观点，我看到了“群星灿烂”（译者注：布什在竞选中用“群星灿烂”赞赏美国社区组织对慈善事业的贡献。他的原话是：I have spoken of a “thousand points of light” of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the nation, doing good.）在发挥作用。我认为《麦金尼法》需要财政支持，我希望国会给它全额拨款。他们为这个法案倾注了心血并做了大量工作，我们正在着手这项工作。

关于精神病，这个说法有些夸张了，我认为这些无家可归者中大约有30%是精神病人。我们应回头来反思一下，让所有那些精神病人都出来是不是正确的举措，也许我们需要做一些工作，让精神病诊所为他们提供帮助更好些。他们中间有很多精神病患者，我们必须照顾他们。但是，目前的工作就是为《麦金尼法》提供全额拨款。

杜卡基斯：那么，和美国3,700万工薪族没有医疗保险的政策一样，这又是我和这位副总统的一个根本分歧。问题是，布什先生，你对中低收入家庭的经济住房计划削减了90%的经费，你是面对无家可归的家庭那样做的。十年前，生活在美国街道或大门旁的无家可归者可没有250万或300万人，我必须开始重新为美国的中低收入家庭建造、修缮住房，为那些期望某天买房的年轻夫妇家庭提供住房。在美国的一些社区，我们的孩子在自己长大的社区里支付不起房费，这是重大的错误。我认为住房合作社已经水到渠成，我们只需要选择一个担负住房责任的总统，一个有建设和修缮住房经验的总统，一个理解为中低收入家庭、年轻夫妇家庭、首次购房者提供经济住房是美国梦的重要组成部分的总统。

提问者：州长，你提到美国的住房梦，可这个梦对我们国家许多年轻人来说是不可能实现的。现在房价上涨，可联邦政府的资助有限，你能给这些人一些具体承诺么？是不是我们命里注定是房客一族？

杜卡基斯：好的，我当然不希望这些年轻人永远是房客，这也是我们优先处理的一个问题。布什先生谈到价值观，我同意他这一点。什么是我们的价值观？难道不是为中低收入家庭提供住房么？难道不是让年轻夫妇家庭、首次购房者有一天拥有自己的住房么？这是不是美国梦的组成部分？我认为是。你知道，在第二次世界大战后，我们有数十万退伍军人（译者注：GI是government issue 的缩写，指现役军人或退伍军人）从战场归来，我们没有袖手旁观，我们出去为他们建造住房。解决住房问题是政府的责任，是房地产企业的责任，是银行的责任，是房产律师的责任，是非赢利机构的责任，是州长、市长的责任。

现在，这就是我作为美国总统要展示的领导力，这不是对无住房者的小恩小惠，这是一个组织住房合作社的问题。我和银行家、建筑商和开发商、房产律师、社区发展机构进行了交谈，他们需要来自华盛顿的领导。华盛顿政府自己不能包办这件事情，我们不应该对此抱有什么期望。但是州长愿意做，市长愿意做，建筑商和社区领导愿意做。它需要一些资金，我们应该准备提供那些资金。

布什先生想把数万亿美元投到“星球大战”计划上，这是我们必须做的选择么？我们是把数万亿美元花到那个武器系统上，还是花在为美国家庭提供舒适的经济住房上？显而易见，住房问题和“星球大战”至少同样重要，甚至比“星球大战”更重要，因为这对加强我们的经济实力和未来发展是非常必要的。那么，我坚信这就是总统的信念，简而言之，《麦金尼法》想做的事情还没有做，我们需要一个在该问题上有领导力、有经验的总统。从1989年1月份开始，我就要把住房问题作为首要工作列入议事议程。

布什：我认为这位州长是在玷污住房政策和无家可归者，让我们来谈谈住房究竟是怎么回事。当你和那些银行家讨论时，他们讨论了当民主党入主白宫后的收益率了么？在我宣誓就职前10天，收益率是21.5%，这么高的收益率如何给你们带来更多的住房？房价上涨了。我现在为100多万家庭提供帮助，我们可不做过去民主党执政时期所做的事情，毫无计划地生产砖瓦灰泥，你们到圣路易（译者注：美国密苏里州东部城市）看看他们那样做的后果，那是错误的。我支持拥有房产，我想看到更多的证据，我想看到对这些项目的控制，我想降低收益率，现在已经降低了一半，可我们入主白宫时的收益率是什么样子的？按照我控制财政赤字的政策，收益率还会大幅降低。但是，如果我们一味支出，这就会把房产市场炒热，我们就会回到过去我和里根总统摆脱了的痛苦的日子。（选自《美国历届总统竞选辩论精选》江西人民出版社，2006年4月）

附原文:
QUESTIONER: Mr. Vice President, in a debate during the Republican primaries, you said most of the nation’s homeless are suffering from mental illness. Estimates of the homeless range from a low of 250,000 by the government, to around three million, including working families and their children. What commitment are you willing to make tonight to this voiceless segment of our society?

BUSH: I want to see the McKinney Act fully funded. I believe that that would help in terms of shelter. The governor’s wife has been very active in the homeless. This isn’t government. These are people that care, that are trying to give of themselves. The government has a role. It is to fully fund the McKinney Act. There are certain army bases that the act calls for that can be used in certain cases to shelter people. And so I think that we’re on the right track. I don’t see this, incidentally, as a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or conservative idea. I see an involvement by a “thousand points of light”. I see the funding that is required, and I hope the Congress will fully fund this bill. They gave it a great deal of conscience and a great deal of work. And we’re on the track on this one.

But look, mental, that was a little overstated it. I’d say around 30 percent. And I think maybe we could look back over our shoulders and wonder whether it was right to let all those mental patients out. Maybe we need to do a better job in mental clinics to help them. A lot of them are mentally sick. And we’ve got to attend to them. But my short range answer is fully fund that McKinney Act.

DUKAKIS: Well, this is another fundamental difference that I have with the vice president, just as I do in the case of health care for 37 million members of working families in this country who don’t have health insurance. The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you’ve cut back by 90 percent on our commitment to affordable housing for families of low and moderate income. And when you do that, you’ve had homeless families. We didn’t have two and a half million, or three million homeless people living on streets and in doorways in this country ten years ago. We’ve got to begin to get back to the business of building and rehabilitating housing for families of low and moderate income in this country; housing for young families that they can look forward some day to buy. We’ve got communities in this country increasingly where our own kids can’t afford to live in the communities that they grew up in. That’s an essential commitment. And I think the housing community is ready. But it’s going to take a president who’s committed to housing, who’s had experience in building and rehabilitating housing who understands that affordable housing for families of low and moderate income, for young families, first time home buyers, is an essential part of the American dream.

QUESTIONER: Governor, you’ve mentioned the American dream of home ownership, and it’s certainly become an impossible one for many of the young people of our nation. And yet in spite of your answer just a few minutes ago, what promise can you realistically hold out to these people that with the costs of housing going up, and with limited help available from Washington, are we destined to become a nation of renters?

DUKAKIS: Well, I certainly hope not. And it’s all a question of what our priorities are. Mr. Bush talked about values. I agree with him. What are our values? Isn’t providing housing for families of low and moderate income, isn’t it making possible for young families, first time home buyers to own their own home some day something that’s part of the American dream? I think so. You know, back after World War II when we had hundreds of thousands of GIs who came back from the war, we didn’t sit around. We went out and built housing. The government was very much involved; so was the housing industry; so was the banking industry; so were housing advocates; so were non-profit agencies; so were governors and mayors.

Now, that’s the kind of leadership that I want to provide as president of the United States. This isn’t a question of a little charity for the homeless. This is a question of organizing the housing community. I’ve talked to bankers and builders and developers, the housing advocates, community development agencies, and they want leadership from Washington. Washington, by itself, can’t do it all. We shouldn’t expect that. But governors are ready; mayors are ready; builders and community leaders are ready. It will require some funds. And we ought to be prepared to provide those funds.

Mr. Bush wants to spend billions and trillions on Star Wars. Well, that’s a choice we have to make, isn’t it? Do we spend money on that weapon system in the billions and trillions, or is providing some decent and affordable housing for families of this country something that is at least as important and probably more so. Because it’s so essential to our economic strength and to our future. Now, that’s the kind of presidency I believe in. And simply to say, well, the McKinney bill will do it just doesn’t do. We need a president who will lead on this issue, who has had experience on this issue. It’s the kind of priority that will be at the top of our list beginning in January of 1989.

BUSH: I think the governor is blurring housing and the homeless. Let’s talk about housing which the question was. When you talk to those bankers, did they discuss where interest rates were when your party controlled the White House? Ten days before I took the oath of office as president they were 21 and a half percent. Now, how does that grab you for increasing housing? Housing is up. We are serving a million more families now. But we’re not going to do it in that old Democratic, liberal way of trying to build more bricks and mortars. Go out and take a look at St. Louis at some of that effort. It is wrong. I favor home ownership. I want to see more vouchers. I want to see control of some of these projects, and I want to keep the interest rates down. They’re half, now of what they were when we came into office, and with my policy of getting this deficit under control, they’ll be a lot less. But if we spend and spend and spend, that is going to wrap up the housing market, and we’ll go right back to the days of the misery index and malaise that President Reagan and I have overcome.