Trump’s First 100 Days, Tsai’s First Year

Published in Liberty Times Net
(Taiwan) on 22 May 2017
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Daniel Lin. Edited by Margaret Dalzell.
After the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, U.S. stocks rose roughly over 20 percent with the Dow Jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and PHLX Semiconductor Sector all setting record highs. However, last Wednesday the Russia investigation led to U.S. stocks seeing their largest decline since Trump took office, leading some to question whether Trump has already worn out his welcome with Trump himself still facing an impeachment crisis. Meanwhile, in the year that Tsai Ing-wen has held office, the Taipei Stock Exchange has risen approximately 23 percent, and the New Taiwan dollar (NTD) has appreciated 8.5 percent, the strongest in Asia and for now seems to be continuing to move forward. This year’s GDP is expected to break 2 percent, coming out of an awkward 1 percent. However, the Tsai administration is still not satisfied as reforms and administration encounter severe challenges.

After Trump and Tsai took office, the American and Taiwanese economies and capital markets performed very well. However, people of both nations were left without much sense of these changes, thus leaving Trump (in office for 100 days) and Tsai (in office for a year) both facing crises with their low ranks in opinion polls. Where did the problem originate? First, both Tsai and Trump’s personal characteristics and execution style are very different. Trump is from the merchant class, arrogant and dictatorial, less bound by tradition and convention and guided by his own interests. These characteristics often lead to shocking rhetoric, the use of public criticism as a tool for negotiation, the use of slogans such as “America First” and “Make America Great Again” and seizing on the legitimacy of freedom of speech with the intention of putting down the opposition without a fight. By contrast, Tsai is a personality marked by caution and gentle sincerity who has committed few mishaps. Thus, despite being reform-minded, she is very prudently and cautiously strolling forward on the slow path of the current system and social structure. She seeks to pacify wherever resistance is met, hoping to stamp out the greatest obstacle to reform – conflict. However, the difficulty of reform even surpasses that of revolution. By using this conservative approach, not only do we turn around and compromise when we run into conflict, but the chance for reform itself may die prematurely, leaving behind only slogans and ideals.

Furthermore, the greatest difference between these two lies here: Trump’s execution style and policy, while perhaps somewhat controversial, have not called into his question his will and determination for economic growth. Tsai, on the other hand, makes every effort to make her executive style stable, taking things slow and steady, with her reforms gaining majority support in opinion polls. However, her determination and methods for achieving economic growth have received intense skepticism. Furthermore, looking at the same base infrastructure, Trump’s more than one trillion-dollar public construction project, viewed as a remedy to fix the disparity between the U.S.’s national greatness and its lagging basic infrastructure, has a clear goal and is heavily anticipated, with few opposing voices. Also, Tsai’s forward-thinking basic infrastructure funding, at 29 billion dollars (USD), is obviously to compensate for construction disparities between the north and the south, as well as disparities between rural and urban areas. While this is a politically legitimate tactic, it will be impossible to delineate the policy clearly in terms of finances, effectiveness, production costs and social utility. Thus, opposing parties will be led to assemble and form a comprehensive boycott in Congress. Understandably, pension reform has faced resistance from those with vested interests. If the public infrastructure policy turns can’t be upheld or are not convincing to the people, then it won’t be any wonder that the Tsai administration's vigor and capacity to govern will have some people concerned.

Secondly, tax reform is one of Trump’s significant political items, a policy direction centered around tax cuts. Trump’s tax reform views corporate tax reductions and border tax adjustments as carrots (or sticks) to lure overseas companies and capital back to the U.S. Even though tax cuts may arouse the infamy of the upper class and corporations, Trump doesn’t fear the vilification of the outside world and has revealed his determination to firmly implement these measures. Conversely, Tsai has taken what outsiders have termed the “Old Blue” finance team, who take protecting stability as their principal viewpoint. The only concern of the “Old Blue” is the current decrease in tax revenue. The “Old Blue” do not see the post-economic development advances in income and employment, both whose value could actually be strengthened through taxation. Because of this tax reform taking effect, if this area reduces taxes a bit then another area will increase a bit. How can this be called a reform?

This so-called tax reform is nothing but a tax revision. This train of thought naturally produces absurd policies. For example, when the stock market rushed to trade tax cuts, and taxes in general did not drop, it was nothing more than encouragement for investors to treat the stock market as a short term investment casino rather than a capital market for long term investment. What’s worse? The Trump tax cuts are to promoting investment, with his eyes trained on the job opportunities and upgraded salaries that expanded investment could bring. This is a constructive policy. Tsai’s opposite approach of increasing taxes is actually to fill a financial black hole in the social welfare system – for example, increasing the inheritance tax by 10 percent and increasing the tobacco tax by 20 dollars per pack to act as a sort of long-term source of revenue. These revenue sources are consumables in that they are gone forever once they are expended. It goes without saying which tax reform benefits the well-being of the largest number of citizens. In brief, the style of a leader will have a great influence on how a country progresses or falls behind. Trump is brimming with controversy but also strength, and is constantly thinking about doing well economically. In this way, his leadership style is naturally able to excite the will of the American people to revitalize the economy. However, Tsai’s personality is flawless with her characteristic warmth and stability – characteristics which suit the continued preservation of her predecessors’ work. But Taiwan at this current stage conceals enormous challenges and crises, which require a leader who will rally the people, dare to revitalize, and dare to “do.” Tsai and her team must adjust their administrative style as soon as possible to promote progress, complete reforms and promptly cast Taiwan out of this swamp of stagnation and self-squandering.


社論》川普百日、小英一年
美國總統川普當選後,美股上漲約二成多,道瓊指數、標普五○○、那斯達克、費城半導體皆創下歷史新高,但通俄門事件卻使上週三美股創下川普當選以來最大跌幅,令人質疑川普行情已經結束,而川普本人更面臨彈劾危機。與此同時,小英執政一年,台股上漲近二十三%,台幣升值約八.五%,稱冠亞洲,且景氣信號連續亮出綠燈,今年GDP可望突破二%,擺脫「保一」的窘境,但小英政府滿意度依然低落,改革與施政遭逢嚴重的挑戰。
川普與小英就任後,美、台經濟與資本市場同樣出現亮眼表現,然而兩國民眾同樣無感,因此川普執政百日、小英執政一週年,民調同樣吊車尾,同樣面臨執政危機。問題出在哪裡?首先,兩人的人格特質與行事風格大相逕庭。川普商人出身,自大獨斷,較少受到傳統與俗套束縛,以利益為核心思維,因此常有驚人之語,以公開批判作為談判武器,藉以威嚇對手,並且打出「美國優先」、「美國再度強大」旗幟,掌握話語權的正當性,意圖不戰而屈人之兵。反觀小英,個性謹小慎微,溫柔敦厚,鮮少意外之舉,因此雖有改革思維,但其進取路徑則是沿著既有制度與社會結構漫步前行,過程小心翼翼,遇有反對抗爭,則重在安撫與溝通,希冀在消弭衝突下,達成改革的最大公約數。但是,改革的困難度甚至超過革命,以如此保守的策略與手段推動,而且遇到抗爭便妥協轉彎,改革可能夭折,最後只剩口號與理想。
另外,兩人最大的差別在於,川普的行事作風與政策,容或有所爭議,但是為美國拚經濟的意志與決心,並未受到質疑。而小英的行事作風力求穩健,事緩則圓,改革亦受多數民調支持,但是拚經濟的決心與方法,卻遭受強烈的懷疑。且看同樣的基礎建設,川普的上兆美元公共建設,被視為翻轉美國國力強大但基礎建設落後的落差,一直備受期待,其目標清楚,反對聲浪亦小;而小英的八千八百億前瞻基礎建設,明明是為了補強地方建設不足,彌補南北與城鄉差距,正當性十足,但具有如此制高點的政策卻無法將財源、效用、成本與社會功能說清楚講明白,讓反對黨有效集結,在國會全面杯葛。年金改革受到既得利益抗爭,可以理解;若是公共建設政策都無力捍衛,無法說服民眾,難怪小英執政團隊的執政能力與魄力令人憂心。
其次,稅改是川普的重大政見,政策方向係以減稅為主。川普的稅改以降企業稅與課徵邊境調整稅,作為吸引海外資金與企業回流美國的紅蘿蔔與棒子,即使減稅可能引起圖利富人與企業的罵名,仍不畏外界譏評,展現堅定實施的決心。反之,小英重用外界戲稱「老藍男」的舊財經團隊,一切以穩定保守為主調,言必稱稅損,只擔心眼前減少的稅收,卻不見經濟發展後增加就業與所得,稅收反而可能增加的前景。因此現行的稅改規劃,就是這邊若減一點稅,那邊又會加一點,所謂稅改只是稅收的調整罷了,何來改革?如此思維之下,自然產生一些荒謬的政策,例如股市當沖交易降稅,而一般交易稅卻不降,無異鼓勵投資人將股市當成短線投機的賭場,而非長期投資的資本市場。尤有甚者,川普減稅是為了促進投資,著眼於擴大投資帶來的工作機會與薪資提升,是建設性的政策;小英的反向加稅,卻是為了填補社福的財務黑洞,例如調增「遺贈稅」十%、每包菸增廿元的「菸稅」,做為長照特種基金的財源,是消耗性的,有去無回。何者的稅改有利於多數國民的福祉,答案不問可知。
總之,領導人的風格充分影響國家的進步或落後。川普充滿爭議,卻渾身是勁,搞好經濟尤其念茲在茲,如此領導風格自然能夠激發美國人拚經濟的鬥志;而小英的人格並無瑕疵,領導風格亦以溫和穩健為特色,適合守成,但現階段的台灣潛藏重大挑戰與危機,需要具有號召力,敢拚敢做的領導人,小英及其團隊必須儘速調整施政風格,方可推動進步,完成改革,使台灣早日擺脫停滯與自耗的泥淖。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Austria: Trump’s Peace Is Far Away

Poland: Donald Trump’s Delusions about South Africa

Cuba: The First Casualty

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Topics

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Related Articles

Russia: The Trump–Musk Conflict: Consequences*

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Austria: Trump’s Solo Dream Is Over