????上周，美國政府問責局（Government Accountability Office）公布的一份綜合調(diào)查顯示，從教育到國防的許多計劃存在重疊和重復之處，而這些計劃每年花費美國納稅人數(shù)十億美元，隨后俄克拉荷馬州參議員湯姆?科伯恩把國會成員稱為“蠢材”，甚至“笨蛋”。這份長達330多頁的報告是一系列報告的開始，旨在關(guān)注政府減少浪費、節(jié)約公共開支的可行方式。

????這份報告出爐之際，正值美國極度動蕩之時。今年的聯(lián)邦預算案遲遲未獲通過，眼看只有不到兩周的時間臨時預算案就將到期，共和黨和民主黨議員一直在就削減開支的方式問題展開激烈辯論。美國2010年預算赤字占GDP的比重接近10%，這是動搖投資者信心的最重要因素之一。

????但美國政府問責局這份報告揭露的問題到底有多嚴重？科伯恩表示，報告結(jié)果應該不會令國會議員甚至美國民眾太感意外。他一再強烈要求將此項調(diào)查作為條文的一部分寫進法律，去年該法律提高了聯(lián)邦借款限額。此外，政府問責局還發(fā)現(xiàn)，提高教師素質(zhì)的聯(lián)邦計劃有82個，職業(yè)培訓和就業(yè)計劃有47個，以及可能會從合并行政、管理及臨床職能中受益的數(shù)百個軍用診所。

????這位62歲的共和黨參議員估計，重復性支出高達1000億到2000億美元，不過政府問責局并未公布具體數(shù)字?？撇髦赋?，如果有什么值得說的，那就是調(diào)查結(jié)果只是對國會實際上有多么低效做出回應。他希望該報告將會成為大刀闊斧削減開支計劃的一個模板。

????我約見了科伯恩，他是一位醫(yī)學博士，也是南部浸禮會執(zhí)事。我們談到了棘手的政府債務和赤字問題、節(jié)約政府開支的措施以及2011年聯(lián)邦預算。

????調(diào)查結(jié)果是否讓您感到驚訝？

????不，那并沒讓我感到意外。我相信調(diào)查結(jié)果也不會讓美國民眾感到驚訝，原因在于從我們的所作所為，以及我們已經(jīng)差不多放棄了我們的監(jiān)管責任，他們知道我們有多么愚蠢。

????實際上，存在的問題有兩個：一是有多少此類計劃超出了美國憲法列舉的權(quán)利條款，這才是大問題，因為我們讓聯(lián)邦政府去做那些不該它做的事。二是所有計劃都出現(xiàn)重復。美國政府所做的一切始終都是出于善意，但當我們看到問題，我們所做的不是進行監(jiān)督并試圖讓已有的這些計劃發(fā)揮作用，相反的，國會議員只是再創(chuàng)建一個計劃。

????您覺得最浪費的是什么？

????職業(yè)培訓比較浪費。我們在政府網(wǎng)站上發(fā)布“員工招聘”信息，然而，完成此類計劃的那些人卻說那就是一個大笑話，完全是浪費時間。

????我并不反對職業(yè)培訓。我所希望的職業(yè)培訓計劃是，確實能為一些人提供從事某項工作所需的培訓。

????為什么我們要有47個各種各樣的獨立職業(yè)培訓計劃？誰也無法弄明白這一切。如果這是一項聯(lián)邦政府職能（我對此表示懷疑），那么任何職業(yè)培訓計劃的設計都應該做到能夠?qū)ζ湫ЧM行評估。但是，在這47個計劃中，沒有一個計劃擁有可以評估其效果的任何指標。

????政府問責局的報告直指諸多軍事計劃。兩黨的國會議員料將在削減國防支出問題上相當猶豫不決。您有何看法？

????國防支出應該成為討論議題。我自始至終都這么說。我認為美國國防部至少浪費了500億美元。但我們確實不知道，因為無法對國防部的任何情況進行評估，因為他們沒有審計財務報表。他們甚至不確定買的什么，甚至不確定他們是否已為此買單。

????過去兩年我一直在做的工作之一是，實現(xiàn)對美國國防部的財務控制。他們做得非常有效，但他們非常沒有效率。在6000億美元的預算中，僅僅通過健全的管理實踐我們就能夠節(jié)約大筆資金。

????請談談未來措施。您希望從該項調(diào)查中看到什么？

????首先，我希望看到國會嚴肅對待監(jiān)管問題。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)非常關(guān)注政府問責局的報告，其政府成員也如此，因為他確實希望進行一些合并。所以，我將與他們以及國會成員共同努力。我們正嘗試以政府問責局報告中的計劃重復為例，來看看我們?nèi)绾文芄?jié)約部分開支。

????之前，我已將該報告的情況告知了奧巴馬總統(tǒng)。他表示這將有助于我們進行合并。奧巴馬總統(tǒng)曾在參議院呆過，他知道參議院是如何運作的。我們的工作缺乏效率。

????現(xiàn)在距離通過預算案的最后期限僅兩周不到，白宮提出削減60多億美元支出。在并不知道將從何處著手削減支出的情況下，您認為總統(tǒng)應該從何處著手？

????不會削減預算。未來10年，債務將會翻番至26.7萬億美元?？績鼋Y(jié)計劃節(jié)約的資金甚至不夠支付前三年赤字的利息。他們不夠果敢，而他們本應如此。

????您對眾議院共和黨議員要求將今年的預算削減610億美元有何看法？

????我覺得這還差得遠。我們在6個月內(nèi)的借款金額達到5800億美元。所以，我們將要借款5800億美元，但我們只會削減610億美元？對于認為我們應該立即著手精簡聯(lián)邦政府的美國自由與保守兩派民眾，你覺得這能達到他們的預期嗎？顯然沒有。

????這是一個好的開端，但我們面臨很多重大問題。在過去的一年半當中，我大量學習了國際金融知識，并閱讀了全世界每位主要經(jīng)濟學家的著作，還與美國財長蒂莫西?蓋特納和美聯(lián)儲主席本?伯南克進行了討論。眼下，我們深陷荊棘之中。如果中東局勢失控，并且利率上升，那么我們將陷入螺旋下降中無法自拔。我們也將淪落到和日本一樣的處境。

????如果我們削減開支的力度過大，那么它是否會使美國經(jīng)濟進一步放緩？民主黨已廣泛援引高盛報告，稱削減610億美元預算可能會導致美國今年第2和第3季度的GDP下降1.5到2個百分點。

????我不太認同這種說法。毫無疑問，若聯(lián)邦政府從經(jīng)濟系統(tǒng)中抽走610億美元，肯定會對GDP產(chǎn)生一定的負面影響。問題是，不以無效方式支出那筆資金，而使其發(fā)揮作用的正面影響是什么？

????經(jīng)濟學家們會一致認為這會給GDP帶來一點壓力，但對未來沒有信心。

????隨著美國政府著手進行合并，政府雇員將會丟掉工作。在就業(yè)相當?shù)兔缘臅r期，這難道不會給失業(yè)率帶來上行壓力嗎？

????不會。首先，盡管政府雇員很了不起，并且總體上做得都不錯，但在美國，他們并未創(chuàng)造出凈經(jīng)濟利益。事實上，他們創(chuàng)造的凈經(jīng)濟利益為負。因此，如果減少非生產(chǎn)性資本開支對經(jīng)濟的拖累，我們將會看到這筆資金將會被用在能夠產(chǎn)生經(jīng)濟效益的方面。

????我們并非是在談論解雇成千上萬的雇員，我們談論的是精簡的問題。即便涉及多達幾十萬雇員，如果我們因為精簡了一些計劃，明年不再需要額外借貸3000億美元，我們還是會給經(jīng)濟帶來巨大的好處。

????Last week, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn called members of Congress everything from "stupid" to "jackasses," following the release of a comprehensive study by the Government Accountability Office that found dozens of overlapping and duplicative programs from education to defense that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. The 330-plus page report is the first in a series looking at ways government could reduce waste and save public dollars.

????The report couldn't come at a more tumultuous time. With less than two weeks to cut a deal on this year's federal budget, Republicans and Democrats have been hotly debating ways to reduce spending. The U.S. budget deficit for 2010 was at nearly 10% of GDP and it's one of the biggest factors unnerving investors.

????But how big of a deal is the GAO report? Coburn, who pushed for the study as part of a provision he inserted into a law that raised the federal borrowing limit last year, says the findings shouldn't be much of a surprise to lawmakers or even the American public. The agency found, among other things, 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality, 47 for job training and employment, as well as hundreds of military clinics that could gain from consolidating administrative, management and clinical functions.

????The 62-year-old Republican senator estimates there's between $100 billion to $200 billion in duplicative spending, although the GAO did not report a specific figure. Coburn says if anything, the findings echo just how inefficient Congress really is. He hopes the report will serve as a template for plans to reduce spending in a big way.

????I caught up with Coburn, a medical doctor and ordained Southern Baptist deacon. We talked about the government looming debts and deficits, steps to save the government money and the 2011 federal budget.

????Do the findings surprise you?

????No they didn't surprise me. And I'm sure they're not going to surprise the American people because they know how stupid we are in terms of what we've done and how we've kind of abdicated our responsibility to do oversight.

????There are really two issues: One is how many of these programs are outside the enumerated powers clause of the U.S. Constitution and that's a big problem, because we've got the federal government doing things that it was never intended to do. The second thing is we have all this duplication. What happens in Washington is always well-intentioned but what we do is we see a problem and instead of doing the oversight and seeing how we make the programs that we have work, members of Congress just create another program.

????What do you find most wasteful?

????Job training is wasteful. We put 'help wanted' on our government website and we're getting people who have been through these programs who say they are a total joke and a total waste of time.

????I'm not against job training. I want a job-training program that actually trains somebody to do something that they get a job for.

????Why should we have 47 different separate job training programs? Nobody understands them all. If it's a federal role -- which I question --then any job-training program ought to be designed so that you can measure its effectiveness. None of the 47 has any metrics on it to measure effectiveness.

????The GAO report took particular aim at military programs. Lawmakers from both parties will probably be very hesitant about reducing defense spending. What are your thoughts?

????Defense spending should be on the table. I've said that all along. I think there is at least $50 billion of waste in the US Department of Defense. But we don't really know because nothing in the Defense Department can be measured because they don't have audited financial statements. They're not even sure what they're buying and they're not even sure if they've paid for it.

????One of the things I've been working on for the last two years is to put financial controls in the Defense Department. They're highly effective at what they do but they're highly inefficient. There's a lot of money in that $600 billion budget that we could save just through good management practices.

????Let's talk next steps. What would you like to see come out of this study?

????First of all I'd like to see Congress get serious about oversight. The President is very interested in the GAO report and so is his staff because he does want to do some consolidation. So I'm going to be working with them, as well as members of Congress. We're going to try to take examples of duplication in the GAO report and look at how we can get some savings.

????I told President Obama ahead of time about the report. He said that would help us consolidate things. I mean he's been in the Senate, he knows how the Senate works. We don't work effectively.

????With less than two weeks to cut a deal on the budget, the White House has proposed more than $6 billion in spending cuts. Without knowing where the cuts would be made, what are your thoughts on the President's starting off point?

????There are no budget cuts. The debt doubles over the next 10 years to $26.7 trillion. The savings by freezing won't even pay the interest costs for the first three years of deficits that he's going to run. They weren't bold and they should have been.

????What about House Republicans' call to cut $61 billion from this year's budget?

????I think it's not nearly enough. The amount of money we borrow over that six months is $580 billion. So we're going to borrow $580 billion but we're only going to cut spending by $61 billion? How do you think that fits with the expectations of Americans both liberal and conservative who think we ought to be downsizing the federal government right now? It doesn't fit.

????It's a good start but we have big problems. I've studied a lot of international finance in the last year and a half and I've read the works of every major economist around the world and I've talked to US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I've talked to US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. We're in deep weeds right now. If something collapses in the Middle East and interest rates go up we have the potential to go on a downward spiral that we cannot get out of. We're going to become Japan, too.

????If we cut too much, wouldn't that slow America's economy even further? Democrats have widely cited a Goldman Sachs report that says cutting the budget by $61 billion could reduce GDP by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year.

????I tend not to believe that statement as I look at it. There's no doubt that if you take $61 billion out of the economy from the federal government that you'll have some negative effect on GDP. The question is what's the positive effect that you get from not spending that money in a nonproductive manner and putting that same money to work?

????Economists would agree that you'll have a little pressure on GDP, but there's no confidence out there about the future.

????With consolidation, public employees would lose their jobs. Couldn't that put upward pressure on unemployment at a pretty dismal time?

????No. First of all, government employees, although they're fabulous and they overall do a great job, they produce no net economic benefit in our country. Matter of fact, they produce a net negative economic benefit. So if you take the drag off the economy by nonproductive implementation of capital what you're going to see is that capital is then going to be put to use in something that is productive.

????We're not talking about letting go hundreds and thousands of employees -- we're talking about streamlining things. Even if it were hundreds of thousands of employees, if we're not borrowing another $300 billion additional next year because we streamlined some programs, that has some tremendous benefit to the economy as well.