美国的预算赤字未来只增不减

还记得预算赤字吗？美国的政客们过去常常大声谴责赤字。不过由于国家的债权人毫不担心政府的偿付能力，而赤字额度就像夏天的冰淇淋那样容易化解，这种抱怨渐渐消失了。政府赤字与美国国内生产总值的比值连续六年下滑，截至2015年9月的那个财年降到了GDP的2.4%。不过随后，赤字的占比又一次提高，在2016财年增长到GDP的3.2%，到2017财年增长到3.5%。历来以抨击政府开销过大而闻名的国会的共和党员在2017年年底力挺减税，又加剧了财政赤字。做好准备听到大量美国政府入不敷出的新闻吧。

现状

在连续几个月使用短期预算措施以维持政府运行之后，由共和党控制的国会于今年2月9日通过了一份为期两年的预算协议，将预算提高了近3,000亿美元。此前，美国政府还在2017年12月实施了税法改革。此举可能会促进经济增长，不过在见效之前，未来十年的联邦收入要缩水近1.5万亿美元。随后，总统唐纳德·特朗普于2月12日提出的2019财年预算打破了共和党在10年内平衡预算的目标。不是所有的共和党人都满意于党内对于赤字态度的转变。众议院自由党团（House Freedom Caucus）的成员拥护有限政府，反对铺张浪费，他们抵制2月的预算协议以及它增加的开销。一些财务上的保守派人士警惕地盯着盈亏线：美国财政部（U.S. Treasury Department）报告称2018财年的预算赤字达到了六年来的最高点7,790亿美元。这相当于特朗普担任总统以来的第一个完整财年GDP的3.9%。

背景

包括前总统罗纳德·里根在内的那些谴责赤字的人经常指出，如果按照政府的财务运作方式，没有哪家公司还能存活。不过在历史上，政府很少保持收支平衡。过去77年间，美国政府只有12次实现盈余。第二次世界大战期间，财政赤字激增，直到战后的和平让美国政府在1947年至1949年间连续三年盈余。冷战后，在比尔·克林顿担任总统期间，美国繁荣发展，在2001财年出现了1,280亿美元盈余。一年后，随着短暂的萧条和“9·11”恐怖袭击发生，原本的盈余变成了1,580亿美元的赤字。2008年，全球金融危机引发的萧条就要严重得多，致使前总统贝拉克·奥巴马在执政期间连续四年赤字超过万亿美元，直至2012年。尽管过程并不漂亮，但奥巴马与共和党控制的国会还是设法把赤字规模从2009财年的1.4万亿美元降了下来。他们的举措之一就是2011年的《预算控制法案》（Budget Control Act），它会强制政府在2012年至2021年间自动削减2万亿美元的开销。不过这种被政府称作“自动减支”（sequester）的条件只在2013年触发。随后几年中，国会都通过投票取消了自动减支。随着2015年国会重启某些税收减免政策，财政赤字再次攀升。

争议

现代货币理论（Modern Monetary Theory）的支持者表示，政府还有很大的赤字支出空间，还可以投入资金实现愿望清单上的很多条目，例如确保每个人都有工作、修复基础设施、确保每个人都能享受医疗等。他们的论点是赤字从不重要，美国作为美元的垄断制造者，从来没有被迫债务违约的风险。不过其他经济学家和政治家认为长期财政赤字的前景令人不安。到2024年，也就是7,600万婴儿潮中的最后一批人也达到退休年龄时，社会福利和医疗保险（Social Security and Medicare）的需求将会带来沉重的负担。通货膨胀已经出现回归的迹象，这会让政府每年支付的利息也随之提升。那些推动小型政府的立法者与彼得·彼得森基金会（Peter G. Peterson Foundation）和Fix the Debt等反赤字的智库已经指出了这一威胁。一些投资者认为，2018年2月美国股市大盘重挫的原因就在于国会如今“愿意像疯子一样花钱”。如果国会内部反赤字的力量还不足以强大到控制开支，另一个群体也会把目标瞄准政府：债券义警（bond vigilantes）。那些对加速通胀不满的投资者会大幅减少国债的购买量。1993年就出现过这样的情况，当时的债券购买者给时任总统克林顿施加了压力，有效促使他放弃了兑现给中产阶级减税的竞选承诺。（财富中文网）

译者：严匡正

Remember the budget deficit? U.S. politicians once loudly and frequently decried all the red ink. The complaints faded as the country’s creditors showed no signs that they were worried about the government’s ability to pay its bills and the shortfall melted like ice cream on a summer’s day. The deficit shrank as a share of the economy for six straight years, narrowing to 2.4 percent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year that ended in September 2015. But the gap started widening again, to 3.2 percent of GDP in fiscal 2016 and 3.5 percent in 2017. Congressional Republicans, members of a party once known for fighting against too much government spending, backed tax cuts in late 2017 that have added to the deficit. Get ready to hear a lot about Washington living beyond its means.

The Situation

On Feb. 9, after months of using short-term budget measures to keep the government running, the Republican-controlled Congress passed a two-year budget deal that would raise spending by almost $300 billion. This followed a rewrite of the tax code in December 2017 that’s estimated to reduce federal revenue by almost $1.5 trillion over the coming decade, before accounting for any economic growth that might result. Then the projections included in the 2019 fiscal year budget proposed by President Donald Trump on Feb. 12 broke from a longstanding Republican goal of balancing the budget in 10 years. Not all Republicans are happy with their party’s turnabout on deficits. Members of the House Freedom Caucus, which champions limited government and is against big spending, opposed February’s budget agreement and its additional spending. Some fiscal conservatives are warily watching the bottom line: The U.S. Treasury Department reported that the budget deficit for the 2018 fiscal year rose to a six-year high of $779 billion. That was equivalent to 3.9 percent of GDP in Trump’s first full fiscal year as president.

The Background

Deficit decriers — including President Ronald Reagan — often noted that no business would survive by running its finances in the same way as the government. Yet the historical reality is that the government doesn’t often balance its books. The U.S. has run surpluses in only 12 of the last 77 years. Deficits surged through World War II before peacetime brought three years of surpluses from 1947 to 1949. The ending of the Cold War and the prosperity during the years when Bill Clinton was in the White House led to a $128 billion surplus in fiscal 2001. A year later this turned into a $158 billion deficit following a brief recession and the upheavals of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The far bigger recession triggered by the global financial meltdown of 2008 meant that President Barack Obama presided over a four-year run of trillion-dollar deficits that ended in 2012. Though the process wasn’t pretty, Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress brought the deficit down from a high of $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009. Part of the effort was the 2011 Budget Control Act, which mandated $2 trillion in automatic spending reductions from 2012 to 2021. But the automatic cuts, known in Washington as the sequester, were only triggered in 2013; Congress has voted to roll them back in subsequent years. The deficit started climbing again after Congress revived some tax breaks in 2015.

The Argument

Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory say that there’s lots more room for deficit spending on wish-list items like guaranteeing everyone a job, fixing infrastructure and ensuring everyone has access to health care. Their argument isn’t that deficits never matter, but that the U.S. — as the monopoly creator of dollars — isn’t at risk of being forced to default on its debt. But other economists and politicians find the long-term deficit outlook troubling. Leading up to 2024, when the last of the 76 million baby boomers approach retirement age, there will be heavy demands on Social Security and Medicare. Inflation is showing signs of returning, which will swell the government’s annual interest payments. That threat is cited by lawmakers pushing for a smaller government and anti-deficit think tanks like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and Fix the Debt. And some investors blamed the February 2018 stock market selloff on the fact that Congress is now “willing to spend like crazy.” If anti-deficit forces in Congress aren’t powerful enough to rein in spending, another group could take aim: bond vigilantes. Investors unhappy at the thought of accelerating inflation could sharply cut their purchases of Treasury debt. That’s what happened in 1993, when bond buyers effectively pressured President Clinton to abandon his campaign promise of a tax cut for the middle class.