几十年来,美国两党议员都拥有强大的政治武器。只要两个神奇的词组合在一起,任何一项法案都应该被叫停:国家债务。
当前,政治格局迎来前所未有的转变,加之史无前例的新冠疫情爆发和经济危机,“国家债务”这几个字彷佛也没有什么意义了。
据知情人士透露,6月10日,由两党参议员组成的小组宣布已经就一项投资总额高达1.2万亿美元的基础设施建设法案达成了初步协议,并且强调不会通过增税来抵消项目成本。该法案仍然需要提交给白宫和参议院共和党会议进行审议,标志着这个一度由赤字鹰派主导的立法机构开始向着鸽派转变。
在过去的几年里,不管是民主党还是共和党掌权,两党都轮流辩称债务问题积重难返,并表示对财政赤字大为不满。在数百万美元的游说活动和众多智库的支持下,紧缩性财政政策一直存在。
在前总统贝拉克·奥巴马执政期间,众议院议长保罗·瑞安一直疾呼取消预算赤字,并且以此为据强烈反对在经济大衰退(Great Recession)的最严重时期向各州和失业成年人提供额外援助。根据保罗的说法,美国正处于债务危机的边缘,情况十分严重,甚至会导致整个社会的全面崩溃。
在唐纳德·特朗普上任后,瑞安改变了立场。2018年至2022年预算赤字增加远远超过1万亿美元,这是因为企业减税政策的出台和综合性支出法案的大幅增加。对于这两项举措,瑞安表示大力支持。
同样地,南希·佩洛西表示支持奥巴马政府的财政支出政策,大肆批评特朗普,“共和党在一个接一个的财政预算案中暴露了其真实议程:增加数万亿美元的赤字,然后利用这些赤字来证明削减老年人和家庭所依赖的医疗保险(Medicare)、医疗补助(Medicaid)和社会保障(Social Security)是合理举措。”2018年,美国财政部(Treasury Department)发布的一份报告显示,2018财年的美国联邦政府财政赤字高达7790亿美元,比上一财年增长17%,创2012年以来的新高。
黑石集团(Blackstone)已故的亿万富翁创始人彼得·G·彼得森曾经在美国前总统理查德·尼克松政府担任商务部部长,后来投入大量精力和资金创立彼得森基金会(Peterson Foundation),致力于推动解决美国的国债问题。
每年,彼得森基金会都会召开一次财政峰会,致力于探讨解决美国政府长期的债务问题。在峰会上,佩洛西、前总统比尔·克林顿和财政部前部长史蒂夫·姆努钦等政客纷纷在口头上对赤字鹰派人士表示,美国政府不断增长的债务和赤字会阻碍对基础设施、教育和研发领域的公共投资,这将导致人们工资降低,妨碍经济增长。
自1931年以来,美国联邦政府的财政预算几乎一直处于赤字状态,鹰派经常表明担忧的债务危机远非迫在眉睫的问题。较低的美国国债收益率也表明,大多数人相信美国经济足够强劲,政府可以承担更多债务。
在经济顾问委员会(Council of Economic Advisers)任职的贾里德·伯恩斯坦等拜登团队的经济学家们则认为,现在的低利率环境实际上正是承担更多债务的好时机,由那些贷款推动的项目和基础设施建设会创造财政盈余,或至少带动更强劲的GDP增长。
全球新冠疫情肆虐的现实,加上唐纳德·特朗普对共和党的重新定义(就连特朗普总统的前任幕僚长米克·马尔瓦尼在疫情爆发之前就表示,再也“没有人关心”预算赤字了),以及彼得森的离世,种种事件已经导致这些政客们的运作格局发生越来越多的改变。似乎,这是两党长久以来第一次没有用预算赤字或增加国家债务作为借口抨击对手。事实上,他们的做法恰恰相反。
就美国总统乔·拜登的基础设施建设方案进行谈判时,共和党没有像过去几年那样敲响警钟,提出财政支出的问题。实际上,法案的投资总额反而迅速从最初的5680亿美元攀升至1.2万亿美元。同时共和党表示更愿意增加预算赤字,而不是通过提高企业税来抵消成本,后者是拜登提议所提议的。
共和党和民主党就救济法案和刺激项目计划基本达成共识,拜登则提出了一项创历史新高的2022年预算案,总值高达6万亿美元,到2031年将总支出增加到8.2万亿美元。同时在未来十年,赤字将超过1.3万亿美元。
今年7月将决定赤字鹰派是落下帷幕,还是只是像大家一样处于“隔离期”。2019年,国会暂停实施美国的债务上限制度(也就是对联邦政府借款能力的立法限制),预计会一直暂停到2021年7月31日。
这意味着美国国会可能得在今年8月休会之前达成共识,解决这一问题。许多分析人士表示,美国在7月下旬将有4500亿美元的现金余额,因此在秋季之前能够避免谈判债务问题。不过,美国财政部警告称,联邦政府可能在今年夏天就会触及债务上限。
关于债务上限的辩论已经成为共和党用来限制其他支出的关键谈判筹码,而非仅仅要求增加预算。
占多数的民主党已经表示,无意限制支出或就债务上限进行谈判。康涅狄格州参议员克里斯·墨菲明确说:“我们不会就债务上限进行谈判。”但就连共和党也不确定这一次他们是否会努力争取支出改革。
在关于债务上限的辩论中,坚定的财政鹰派人物、共和党参议员兰德·保罗被问及其他共和党人是否会坚定不移地要求支出改革时,他迅速地反驳道:“我对此表示怀疑。”(财富中文网)
译者:三叠瀑
几十年来,美国两党议员都拥有强大的政治武器。只要两个神奇的词组合在一起,任何一项法案都应该被叫停:国家债务。
当前,政治格局迎来前所未有的转变,加之史无前例的新冠疫情爆发和经济危机,“国家债务”这几个字彷佛也没有什么意义了。
据知情人士透露,6月10日,由两党参议员组成的小组宣布已经就一项投资总额高达1.2万亿美元的基础设施建设法案达成了初步协议,并且强调不会通过增税来抵消项目成本。该法案仍然需要提交给白宫和参议院共和党会议进行审议,标志着这个一度由赤字鹰派主导的立法机构开始向着鸽派转变。
在过去的几年里,不管是民主党还是共和党掌权,两党都轮流辩称债务问题积重难返,并表示对财政赤字大为不满。在数百万美元的游说活动和众多智库的支持下,紧缩性财政政策一直存在。
在前总统贝拉克·奥巴马执政期间,众议院议长保罗·瑞安一直疾呼取消预算赤字,并且以此为据强烈反对在经济大衰退(Great Recession)的最严重时期向各州和失业成年人提供额外援助。根据保罗的说法,美国正处于债务危机的边缘,情况十分严重,甚至会导致整个社会的全面崩溃。
在唐纳德·特朗普上任后,瑞安改变了立场。2018年至2022年预算赤字增加远远超过1万亿美元,这是因为企业减税政策的出台和综合性支出法案的大幅增加。对于这两项举措,瑞安表示大力支持。
同样地,南希·佩洛西表示支持奥巴马政府的财政支出政策,大肆批评特朗普,“共和党在一个接一个的财政预算案中暴露了其真实议程:增加数万亿美元的赤字,然后利用这些赤字来证明削减老年人和家庭所依赖的医疗保险(Medicare)、医疗补助(Medicaid)和社会保障(Social Security)是合理举措。”2018年,美国财政部(Treasury Department)发布的一份报告显示,2018财年的美国联邦政府财政赤字高达7790亿美元,比上一财年增长17%,创2012年以来的新高。
黑石集团(Blackstone)已故的亿万富翁创始人彼得·G·彼得森曾经在美国前总统理查德·尼克松政府担任商务部部长,后来投入大量精力和资金创立彼得森基金会(Peterson Foundation),致力于推动解决美国的国债问题。
每年,彼得森基金会都会召开一次财政峰会,致力于探讨解决美国政府长期的债务问题。在峰会上,佩洛西、前总统比尔·克林顿和财政部前部长史蒂夫·姆努钦等政客纷纷在口头上对赤字鹰派人士表示,美国政府不断增长的债务和赤字会阻碍对基础设施、教育和研发领域的公共投资,这将导致人们工资降低,妨碍经济增长。
自1931年以来,美国联邦政府的财政预算几乎一直处于赤字状态,鹰派经常表明担忧的债务危机远非迫在眉睫的问题。较低的美国国债收益率也表明,大多数人相信美国经济足够强劲,政府可以承担更多债务。
在经济顾问委员会(Council of Economic Advisers)任职的贾里德·伯恩斯坦等拜登团队的经济学家们则认为,现在的低利率环境实际上正是承担更多债务的好时机,由那些贷款推动的项目和基础设施建设会创造财政盈余,或至少带动更强劲的GDP增长。
全球新冠疫情肆虐的现实,加上唐纳德·特朗普对共和党的重新定义(就连特朗普总统的前任幕僚长米克·马尔瓦尼在疫情爆发之前就表示,再也“没有人关心”预算赤字了),以及彼得森的离世,种种事件已经导致这些政客们的运作格局发生越来越多的改变。似乎,这是两党长久以来第一次没有用预算赤字或增加国家债务作为借口抨击对手。事实上,他们的做法恰恰相反。
就美国总统乔·拜登的基础设施建设方案进行谈判时,共和党没有像过去几年那样敲响警钟,提出财政支出的问题。实际上,法案的投资总额反而迅速从最初的5680亿美元攀升至1.2万亿美元。同时共和党表示更愿意增加预算赤字,而不是通过提高企业税来抵消成本,后者是拜登提议所提议的。
共和党和民主党就救济法案和刺激项目计划基本达成共识,拜登则提出了一项创历史新高的2022年预算案,总值高达6万亿美元,到2031年将总支出增加到8.2万亿美元。同时在未来十年,赤字将超过1.3万亿美元。
今年7月将决定赤字鹰派是落下帷幕,还是只是像大家一样处于“隔离期”。2019年,国会暂停实施美国的债务上限制度(也就是对联邦政府借款能力的立法限制),预计会一直暂停到2021年7月31日。
这意味着美国国会可能得在今年8月休会之前达成共识,解决这一问题。许多分析人士表示,美国在7月下旬将有4500亿美元的现金余额,因此在秋季之前能够避免谈判债务问题。不过,美国财政部警告称,联邦政府可能在今年夏天就会触及债务上限。
关于债务上限的辩论已经成为共和党用来限制其他支出的关键谈判筹码,而非仅仅要求增加预算。
占多数的民主党已经表示,无意限制支出或就债务上限进行谈判。康涅狄格州参议员克里斯·墨菲明确说:“我们不会就债务上限进行谈判。”但就连共和党也不确定这一次他们是否会努力争取支出改革。
在关于债务上限的辩论中,坚定的财政鹰派人物、共和党参议员兰德·保罗被问及其他共和党人是否会坚定不移地要求支出改革时,他迅速地反驳道:“我对此表示怀疑。”(财富中文网)
译者:三叠瀑
For decades, elected officials on both sides of the aisle have held a powerful political weapon at their sides. Two magic words was all it took to explain why any piece of legislation should be stopped: national debt.
But in an unprecedented political landscape, and a health and economic crisis of a history-altering scale, those words are losing their meaning.
On June 10, a bipartisan group of Senators announced that they had reached a tentative deal on an infrastructure bill with a total investment of $1.2 trillion, according to officials familiar with the deal, and no increase in taxes to help offset the cost. The plan, which still needs to be presented to the White House and the Senate Republican conference, marks a dovish transformation to a legislative body once dominated by deficit hawks.
In years past, Democrats and Republicans took turns arguing that the debt was on an unsustainable trajectory and frowning upon deficit spending depending on who was in power. Austerity measures, backed by millions of dollars in lobbying and numerous think tanks, were always there.
When former president Barack Obama was in power, House Speaker Paul Ryan became a full-fledged deficit warrior, using it as a way to oppose sending additional aid to states and unemployed adults at the height of the Great Recession. According to Paul, America was teetering on the brink of a debt crisis so significant it would lead to the downfall of society as we know it.
Then Donald Trump took office and Ryan backtracked, deficits between the 2018 and 2022 spending period increased by well over $1 trillion because of corporate tax cuts and a hefty increase in the omnibus spending bill, both of which he backed.
In a similar vein, Nancy Pelosi backed spending measures under Obama and then criticized Trump, “Republicans have exposed their true agenda in budget after budget: add trillions to the deficit, and then use those deficits to justify slashing the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that seniors and families rely on,” she said in 2018 following a Treasury Department report that the U.S. budget deficit rose 17% to $779 billion that year, the highest level since 2012.
Peter G. Peterson, the late billionaire founder of Blackstone who worked under former President Richard Nixon as Secretary of Commerce, dedicated himself and much of his money to creating a foundation that pushed the issue of the national debt.
Each year the Peterson Foundation held a Fiscal Summit dedicated to addressing the nation's long-term debt. There, politicians like Pelosi, former president Bill Clinton, and former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin paid lip service to deficit hawks, saying that the growing U.S. debt and deficit would stop public investment in infrastructure, education, and R&D, that it would decrease wages and stymie economic growth.
The federal government has run at a budget deficit pretty much nonstop since 1931, and the threat of default, which hawks often cite, is nowhere near imminent. Low yields on government bonds show that most agree: the U.S. economy is strong enough to take on more debt.
Biden economists like Jared Bernstein, who serves on the Council of Economic Advisers, argue that low interest rates actually make now a good time to take on more debt and that the programs and infrastructure that those loans fuel will contribute to a surplus, or at least a stronger GDP.
The realities of the Covid-19 pandemic, coupled with Donald Trump’s reimagining of the Republican party (even President Trump’s own former chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, declared pre-Covid that “nobody cares” about the deficit anymore) and the death of Peterson, have increasingly altered the landscape in which these politicos function. For the first time in a long time, it appears that both parties have eschewed using deficit spending or an increased national debt as an excuse to knock down opponents. In fact, they’re doing just the opposite.
In ongoing negotiations over President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan, Republicans aren’t ringing the spending alarm, as they would have in subsequent years. In fact, they came up quickly and steeply from their $568 billion opening bid to $1.2 trillion and argued that they’d prefer to increase deficit spending instead of offsetting the cost of the bill with an increase in corporate tax rates, as Biden has proposed.
Republicans and Democrats largely agreed on covid relief bills and stimulus checks and Biden has proposed a record-breaking $6 trillion budget that would call to raise spending to $8.2 trillion by 2031. Deficits would run above $1.3 trillion over the next decade.
This July will determine if the deficit hawks are indeed dead or if they were just quarantining like the rest of us. In 2019, Congress suspended the debt ceiling, the legislative limit on the amount of money that the federal government can borrow, through July 31, 2021.
That means they might have to deal with it ahead of their August recess this summer. Many analysts say that the U.S. will have a $450 billion cash cushion in late July and will be able to avoid talks until the fall but the Treasury is warning that the federal government could run out of borrowing room this summer.
The debate over the ceiling has become a key bargaining chip used by Republicans who use it to limit other spending instead of just passing through a clean increase.
The Democratic majority has already indicated that it has no intentions of limiting spending or negotiating over the ceiling. “We don’t negotiate on the debt ceiling,” said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. But even Republicans aren’t sure that they’ll fight hard for spending reform this time around.
When asked if other Republicans would be unbending in their demand for spending reform during a debt ceiling debate staunch fiscal hawk Senator Rand Paul had a quick retort, “I doubt it.”