亚伯拉罕•林肯(Abraham Lincoln)有句名言：“你可以一时欺骗所有人，也可以永远欺骗某些人，但不可能永远欺骗所有人”。据报道，他的继任者乔治•布什(George W. Bush)曾补充称：“你可以永远欺骗一些人，而那些是你希望关注的人。”一些英国政界人士希望在公共财政的辩论中听从这一建议。财政大臣阿里斯泰尔•达林(Alistair Darling)拒绝这样做，这似乎是首相戈登•布朗(Gordon Brown)希望撤换他的原因。但达林应该因为他的诚实得到表扬，而非遭到撤换。
就像我在最近两篇专栏（《应对英国财政大灾难》(Tackling Britain's fiscal debacle)，5月7日出版，以及《结束英国虚张声势的财政大战》(End Britain's phoney fiscal war)，6月4日出版）中所主张的那样，英国财政状况已成为一项巨大中期挑战。这也是严重政策失误的明显特征：财政部估计，公共部门的结构性净借款占本财年国内生产总值(GDP)的9.8%。
这一可怕的数字是4个错误的结果：对于GDP可持续增长的过高估计；此次危机之前财政状况逐年下滑；对可持续财政收入的夸大；实际支出飙升，这是通胀处于意外低位的结果。
因此，下一个财年，英国政府的收支比预计将达到3：4。更准确的来说，2010-11年度，支出占GDP的比例预计将达到48.1%，高于2008-09年度的40.8%，经常收入占GDP的比例预计为36.2%，低于2008-09年度的36.9%。到2013-14年度，支出占GDP的比例预计将降至43.4%，而收入占GDP的比例将升至37.9%。因此，根据工党的计划，财政状况改善的四分之三，将来自公共支出占GDP的比例下降。今后多年间，支出增加速度将远远低于GDP增速，的确，根据可信的假设，这将持续10年。
那么，我的前同事、现任英国学校事务大臣埃德•鲍尔斯(Ed Balls)坚称，2011年以后，工党能够承受教育和医疗支出的实际增加，这话是什么意思呢？他的政治目标是开辟“清澈红水”(clear red water)，在工党和保守党之间划清界线。但他的说法也说得通吗？答案是：既说得通，又说不通。
我的同事克里斯•吉尔斯(Chris Giles)解释了肯定答案的意思。根据英国财政部的预算报告，整体支出数字包括，按年率计算，2010-11年度至2013-14年度实际净公共投资大幅减少17%。在债务偿还和社保支出如今看来不可避免的增加后，在上述3年期间，按年率计算，实际经常支出将以0.7%的速度下降。假设实际医疗和教育支出持平，那么其它所有领域的实际经常支出——同样在除去债务利息和社保支出后——必须以3.1%的年率下降。显然，如果实际医疗和教育支出要大幅增长，那么其它领域的支出将不得不大幅下降。
这就是为什么答案也必须是否定的。如果再次当选，工党可能会增加医疗和教育方面的实际支出，但根据它自己的预测，其它支出将不得不大幅削减，除非工党准备运行规模超过目前计划的财政赤字。因此，和保守党政府一样，工党政府削减实际支出也是不可避免的。唯一的问题是，什么领域的支出将遭到削减。
工党如何躲避这一陷阱呢？一种可能是，反对财政部的设想，在此基础上投入竞选。正如其前任布朗过于乐观那样，达林肯定也有可能过于悲观。目前阶段，我们无从得知。然而，抱最好的希望是危险的。拒绝工党自己的财政大臣的预测也是令人尴尬的。
另一种可能是，主张提高税率。在这里，问题是相关数字如此之大。2010-11年度之后的3年，仅仅是阻止计划中公共支出占GDP的比例下滑，财政收入占GDP的比例就必须上升5%，至41%。以目前价格计算，财政收入必须增加600亿英镑。这相当于将所得税基本税率上调12%。
伟大的美国讽刺作家亨利•路易斯•孟肯(H.L. Mencken)曾宣称，“从来没有人因为低估美国大众的品味而破产”。更让我担心的是这种嘲讽观点的政治版：政界人士已形成这种看法：没有人因为低估选民的智慧而输掉选举。但无论谁当选，下届大选的核心将是艰难的选择。一个民主政体应就这些选择进行公开且诚实的辩论。
除非经济恢复其丧失的产能，否则财政状况将需要大幅调降支出或大幅增加税收。的确，可能需要在两方面都有一些行动。达林认识到了这一简单现实。保守党也是。但布朗呢？他和他的同僚肯定有权争取提高医疗和教育实际支出。但他们也需要说明计划如何承担这笔支出。不说清楚就是对选民智慧的一种侮辱。
Abraham Lincoln famously said that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. His successor, George W. Bush, is reported to have added: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” Some British politicians wish to follow that advice in the debate on the public finances. Alistair Darling's refusal to do that was, it appears, the reason Gordon Brown, the prime minister, wanted to drop him. But Mr Darling is to be praised, not dropped, for his probity.
As I have argued in two recent columns (“Tackling Britain's fiscal debacle”, May 7, and “End Britain's phoney fiscal war”, June 4), the fiscal position has become a huge medium-term challenge. It is also an obvious symptom of gross policy failure: structural public sector net borrowing is estimated by the Treasury at 9.8 per cent of gross domestic product this financial year.
This horrendous figure is the result of four mistakes: an overestimate of sustainable GDP; slippage in the fiscal position in the years up to the crisis; an exaggeration of sustainable revenue; and a surge in real spending, as a result of unexpectedly low inflation.
Next financial year, as a result, the British government is forecast to spend £4 for every £3 it receives. More precisely, spending is forecast at 48.1 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, up from 40.8 per cent in 2008-09, and current receipts are forecast at 36.2 per cent of GDP, down from 36.9 per cent in 2008-09. By 2013-14, spending is forecast to be down to 43.4 per cent of GDP, while receipts rise to 37.9 per cent. Thus, under Labour's plans, three quarters of the improvement in the fiscal position would come from a fall in public spending, relative to GDP. Spending is to grow far more slowly than GDP over many years – indeed, under plausible assumptions, for a decade.
So what did my former colleague Ed Balls, now schools minister, mean when he insisted that Labour could afford real increases in spending on schools and hospitals after 2011? His political goal is to open “clear red water” between Labour and Tories. But does his claim also make sense? The answer is: “yes” and “no”.
My colleague, Chris Giles, has worked out what a “yes” answer might mean. Assume the overall spending figures put forward in the Budget, which includes a massive 17 per cent annualised real cut in net public investment between 2010-11 and 2013-14. After the now inevitable increases in debt service and social security spending, real current spending would fall at an annualised rate of 0.7 per cent over these three years. Suppose that spending on health and education were kept level in real terms. Then real current spending on everything else – again, apart from debt interest and social security – must fall at an annual rate of 3.1 per cent a year. Evidently, if spending on health and education were to be increased significantly in real terms, cuts in other areas would have to be savage.
This is why the answer must also be “no”. If re-elected, Labour could increase real spending on health and education but, under its forecasts, other spending would have to be cut fiercely unless it were to run even bigger fiscal deficits than now planned. So cuts in real spending are as inevitable under Labour as under the Conservatives. The only question is where those cuts might fall.
How might Labour escape this trap? One possibility is to campaign against the Treasury's assumptions. It is certainly possible that Mr Darling is too pessimistic, as his predecessor, Mr Brown, was too optimistic. At this stage, we simply do not know. Yet it would be risky to hope for the best. It would also be embarrassing to reject the forecasts of Labour's own chancellor.
Another possibility would be to argue for higher taxes. Here the difficulty is that the numbers are so large. Merely to eliminate the reduction in public spending as a share of GDP planned for the three years after 2010-11, receipts must rise by 5 per cent of GDP, or £60bn in current prices, to reach 41 per cent of GDP. This would be equivalent to raising the basic rate of income tax by as much as 12p in the pound.
The great American satirist H.L. Mencken once declared that “nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the great American public”. I am more worried by a political version of this cynical view: the idea has grown up among politicians that nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the electorate's intelligence. But at the heart of the next general election will be hard choices, for whoever wins. A democracy should debate those alternatives openly and honestly.
Unless the economy recovers its lost output, the fiscal position will demand tough spending cuts or huge increases in taxation. Indeed, it will probably require some of both. Mr Darling has recognised that simple reality. So have the Conservatives. But does Mr Brown? He and his colleagues are surely entitled to campaign for higher real spending on health and education. But they also need to say how they plan to pay for it. Anything less is an insult to the electorate's intelligence.