民主党人为即将到来的2026年大选发现了一个绝妙的新词。负担能力。医疗保健需要更具负担能力。
Democrats have discovered a wonderful new word for the 2026 elections coming to primetime. Affordability. Healthcare needs to be more affordable.
舒默在民主党的中期选举宣传中鼓吹“负担能力”，同时却在破坏共和党为抑制飙升成本所做的努力。住房需要更具负担能力。食品杂货需要更具负担能力。谁会反对呢？当然不是我。
SCHUMER PREACHES AFFORDABILITY IN DEM MIDTERM PITCH WHILE SABOTAGING GOP FIXES FOR SOARING COSTS Housing needs to be more affordable. Groceries need to be more affordable. Who could possibly disagree? Certainly not me.
让社会主义者百分之百地劫富济贫，你依然无法支付账单。但作为一名财务顾问，每当有人告诉我他们正在让某样东西变得“更具负担能力”时，我都有一个疑问。你是真的降低了成本，还是只是找了别人来买单？因为这两者有着天壤之别。民主党人已将“负担能力”作为其2026年经济议程的核心。
LET SOCIALISTS ROB FROM THE RICH 100% AND YOU STILL WON’T BE ABLE TO PAY THE BILLS But as a financial advisor, I have one question whenever somebody tells me they're making something more affordable. Did you actually lower the cost, or did you just find somebody else to pay the bill? Because those are two very different things. Democrats have made affordability a centerpiece of their 2026 economic message.
丽兹·皮克：民主党的“负担能力”骗局在他们实际执政的州已经破产。进步派民主党人讨论的方案包括投入1万亿美元用于增加住房供应、政府生产处方药、联邦公用事业费率标准，以及限制家庭在托儿服务上的支出。
LIZ PEEK: DEMOCRATS’ AFFORDABILITY SCAM COLLAPSES IN STATES THEY ACTUALLY RUN Among the ideas being discussed by progressive Democrats are $1 trillion toward new housing supply, government-produced prescription drugs, federal utility-rate standards and limits on what families pay for childcare.
其他民主党人则在推动扩大医疗补贴，并为家庭提供额外的政府援助。
Other Democrats are pushing expanded healthcare subsidies and additional government assistance for families.
一些提议或许能触及合理的根本问题。例如，削减分区和许可限制以建造更多住房，确实可以增加供应。我完全支持寻找让美国重新建设的方法。
Some proposals could attack legitimate underlying problems. Cutting zoning and permitting restrictions to build more housing, for example, could actually increase supply. I'm all for finding ways to make America build again.
美国破碎的许可制度正在悄无声息地推高你的生活成本。但关于“负担能力”的讨论中，有太多内容依然遵循着旧有的套路。某样东西太贵了？那就让政府多付一点。我们以前看过这种戏码。我们过去称之为“征税与支出”。现在我们称之为“负担能力”。想象一下你的医疗保险每年需要2万美元。政府给了你8000美元的补贴。你个人需要支付的账单降到了1.2万美元。太棒了。但医疗保健的成本并没有突然变成1.2万美元。它依然需要2万美元。我们只是改变了支付部分账单的人而已。
AMERICA’S BROKEN PERMITTING SYSTEM IS QUIETLY RAISING YOUR COST OF LIVING But too much of the affordability conversation still follows an old formula. Something costs too much. Have government pay more of it. We've seen this movie before. We used to call it tax and spend. Now we call it affordability. Imagine your health insurance costs $20,000 a year. Government gives you an $8,000 subsidy. Your personal bill falls to $12,000. Fantastic. But healthcare didn't suddenly cost $12,000. It still cost $20,000. We simply changed who wrote part of the check.
同样的原则也适用于儿童保育补贴、住房援助以及无数税收优惠措施。
The same principle applies to childcare subsidies, housing assistance and countless tax credits.
政府的资金并非来自国会大厦下某个“神奇的自动取款机”；这些资金最终都来源于税收、借款，或是从其他领域调拨的资源。
Government money isn't created by a magical ATM underneath the Capitol. It ultimately comes from taxes, borrowing or shifting resources from somewhere else.
如果联邦政府确实拥有充裕的现金，这种情况或许不会让我感到那么困扰……但事实并非如此。美国每年仍面临巨额财政赤字，联邦债务高达数万亿美元。
This would bother me less if the federal government were swimming in excess cash. It isn't. The United States continues running enormous annual deficits while carrying a federal debt measured in the tens of trillions of dollars.
想象这样一个家庭：年收入为10万美元，却每年支出13万美元——他们早已深陷债务之中。这时，父亲走进厨房宣布：“好消息！我让食品杂货的价格变得更便宜了……”（其实他只是把这笔费用记到了另一张信用卡上而已。）没人会把这种做法称为“提高生活可负担性的措施”；人们只会去找泰德·詹金（Ted Jenkin）来寻求财务方面的现实建议。
Imagine a family earning $100,000 annually but spending $130,000. They're already buried in debt. Then Dad walks into the kitchen and announces: "Great news. I just made groceries more affordable." He put them on another credit card. Nobody would call that an affordability plan. They'd call Ted Jenkin for a financial reality check.
然而，无论是民主党人还是共和党人，只要对他们有利，就会轻易接受政府的各种福利措施，却几乎从不花时间去认真讨论这些政策的真正成本与影响。我更希望看到人们讨论以下这些真正关乎生活可负担性的问题：
Yet Democrats and frankly, Republicans when it suits them regularly embrace government benefits without spending nearly enough time discussing the ultimate bill. Here's the affordability agenda I'd rather hear debated.
为什么美国会出现住房短缺的问题？
Why does America have a housing shortage?
为什么建造新房需要如此漫长的时间且成本如此高昂？
Why does it take so long and cost so much to build?
为什么医疗保健价格对消费者来说难以理解（即为何医疗保健服务如此昂贵？）
Why are healthcare prices nearly impossible for consumers to understand?
为什么医生、护士和儿童保育服务人员的数量远远不足？
Why aren't there enough doctors, nurses and childcare providers?
为什么我们无法更快地生产并输送更多的能源？解决这些问题需要从供给、市场竞争、监管机制以及生产效率等方面入手，而不仅仅是简单地补贴需求。
Why can't we produce and transmit more energy faster? Those are cost questions. And solving them means attacking supply, competition, regulation and productivity and not merely subsidizing demand.
如果100个家庭都在争夺80套房子，那么给每个人更多的政府补贴并不会凭空多出20套房子。
If we have 100 families fighting over 80 houses, giving everybody a bigger government check doesn't magically create another 20 houses.
民主党人声称他们的政策能够降低劳动家庭的生活成本，他们的一些提案确实值得讨论；但美国人应该用一个简单的标准来检验这些政策：这些政策真的降低了成本，还是只是让别人来承担这些成本呢？
Democrats say their affordability agenda would lower costs for working families, and some of their proposals deserve a legitimate debate. But Americans should apply one simple test to every promise: Did you make it cheaper, or did you make somebody else pay for it?
因为我怀疑我们正步入这样一个时代：政府开支会被越来越多地包装成解决生活成本问题的良方。用词已经变了。宣传话术也更动听，算法也在不断重复这一套说辞。但美国人以前见过这一套把戏——至少我见过。征税、开支、发放补贴，周而复始。只是现在不再这么叫了，改称为“提升可负担性”罢了。反正你的钱包可分辨不出其中的差别。
Because I suspect we're entering another era when government spending will increasingly be sold as the solution to the cost of living. The terminology has changed. The sales pitch is better. The algorithms repeat the message. But Americans have seen this movie before. At least I have. Tax. Spend. Subsidize. Repeat. Just don't call it that anymore. Call it affordability. Your wallet won't know the difference.