????CBO相信如果什么也不做，十年內美國的赤字將更高，導致私營部門投資減少，資本效率下降。相比掉落懸崖，產值和薪資水平將更低。CBO這一預測的前提是人們工作和增加儲蓄的動力，不會超出債務減少帶來的國民儲蓄和投資下降。CBO試圖量化凈效益和成本，結果發現十年后仍是方向難料——實際GDP的變動幅度從下降2%到增長2.1%不等。

????這是削減預算觀點的最大問題——即便是長期來看，也不知道減少支出、控制預算赤字，是否真的值得。我們知道短期內不值得，因為它會對整個系統構成沖擊，但即便是長期，值不值得也不清楚。CBO預計2022年以后，預算赤字增長（如果不掉落懸崖，赤字將累積）對GDP的負面影響將更大，推動利率上升。但它估計，3個月和10年期美國國債的利率只會上升0.4個百分點——0.4%。，真的嗎？整個國家承受幾年的痛苦，就得到了這些？避免利率上升了0.4%？

????預測是預測，很多時候它們都錯得很離譜——特別是，如果當人們試圖預測的是十年后的事情。CBO有一個觀點，債務/GDP比率上升意味著投資和融資的難度加大。“真實世界”（對于你和我）的情況是這樣，但對美國而言并不是這樣。出于這樣或那樣的理由，華爾街、普通民眾和全世界都相信，美國能過了這道關。去年標準普爾(S&P）下調了美國的信用評級，理由是美國的高負債率以及運轉失靈的政府損害了它在全世界的地位。但市場不以為然，將美國國債的收益率推到了前所未有的低位——短期美國國債事實上已為負利率。這意味著就算今年美國的負債再增加1.1萬億美元，由于超低利率，其他的償債金額反而會減少。

??? 但市場多變，大門隨時可能關上。如果由于某種原因，某位債券經理一早醒來決定做空美國國債，他/她可能觸發美國國債的巨大拋售，幾天內就將收益率推至高位。在歐洲就曾經出現有過這樣的情況：1個月前意大利支付的收益率還在2%左右，下一個月就要接近7%了。當你的債務收入比上升時，市場拒絕你的可能性會上升，但不一定。

????因此，在削減支出的好處依然不明的時候，政客們很難以削減支出為由、將整個國家推入深度衰退。事實是，《2011年預算控制法案》是一出政治劇戲碼，共和黨人希望藉此安撫“茶黨”選民——而隨著經濟改善，如今這類選民基本上已消失。至于討論上調最富有2%人群的邊際稅率，則純粹是政治花招。事實上，多項研究（包括CBO的研究）都顯示，上調邊際稅率能增加的收入不多(不同于民主黨觀點），也不會對經濟造成真正的傷害(不同于共和黨觀點）。說到底，如果將最富有2%人群的邊際稅率從35%提高到39.6%，就能完全解決財政懸崖難題，相信各方早就就此達成一致了。

????The CBO believes that the higher deficit that the nation would have in 10 years if it did nothing would lead to less private investment, which would lower productive capital therefore reducing output and wages relative to where they would be by going over the cliff. It bases this on the belief that people's incentive to work and save by keeping more of their money would not outweigh an assumed decrease in national savings and investment that comes from having lower debt. The CBO tried to quantify the net benefits and costs and they found that after 10 years it still could go either way – spanning a range for real GDP from a decrease of 2% to an increase of 2.1%.

????This is the biggest problem with getting on the budget-cutting bandwagon – even in the long term it is unclear if sacrificing spending to check budget deficits really pays off. We know it won't in the short term, given the shock to the system, but even in the long term it's unclear. The CBO suggests that beyond 2022, rising budget deficits, accrued by not going over the cliff, would lead to larger negative impacts on GDP and cause interest rates to rise. But it estimates that the interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes would just be 0.4 percentage points higher - 0.4%, really? That's all the nation gets for incurring a terrible couple of years – a lousy 0.4% reduction?

????Projections are projections, and they are spectacularly wrong most of the time – especially when trying to forecast out 10 years. The message the CBO is sending makes sense – a higher debt to income ratio means that it will be harder to invest and harder to obtain credit. That's how it works in the "real world" (i.e. for you and me), but not for the US. Wall Street, Main Street and the world believe that the US, for some reason, gets a pass. S&P downgraded the credit rating of the US last year noting the nation's high debt ratio and its dysfunctional government was hurting its standing in the world. But the markets didn't care, pushing yields on US treasuries to their lowest point ever – short term bills were actually negative. This means that even though the US tacked on an extra $1.1 trillion to that national debt this year its debt payment went down because of the super low rates.

????But the market is fickle and can turn on you at any time. If for some reason a bond manager wakes up one morning and decides to short US debt, he or she could set off a huge sell off in Treasuries that could eventually send yields sky high in a matter of days. We saw that in Europe where Italy was paying yields around 2% one month and then close to 7% the next. The chance that the market moves against you increases as your debt to income ratio rises, but not necessarily.

????It is therefore hard for politicians to so brazenly throw the nation into a deep recession to reduce spending when the benefits of acting are so intangible. The fact is that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was political theater in which the Republicans tried to appease "Tea Party" voters – a constituency that has basically been wiped out as the economy has improved. Discussions around raising the marginal tax rate on the top 2% are simply just political fodder. Indeed, multiple studies, including ones by the CBO say that it would raise an insignificant amount of money (a negative for the Democratic view) but would also cause no real harm to the economy (a negative for the Republican view). In the end, if it takes changing the top 2% rate from 35% to 39.6% to end this whole fiscal cliff charade, you can bet it has already been agreed to.