美國的債務負擔也許要比我們想的重得多。

對美國政府支出持批評態度的人經常說，美國政府的債務已經超過了整個美國的GDP，為后者的103%，因此需要限制政府，予以節流。展示美國負債情況的網站usdebtclock.org采用了同樣的衡量標準，共和黨控制的眾議院金融服務委員會，也把這個數字放在自己網站的顯著位置上。

而那些傾向于淡化美國政府總負債水平的人，則通常會采用一個較小的數字，略低于美國GDP的74%，這是公眾所持的債權，不包括社保信托基金等聯邦政府下屬機構的債務。他們的思路是，政府欠自己的錢和它欠公眾或者他國政府的錢應該有很大差別。

然而，芝加哥儲備銀行最新分析表明，說美國的債務可控也好，對其憂心忡忡也罷，上述兩個群體也許都低估了美國政府的債務負擔。以下是他們在本次研究中繪制的一張表：

America may be a whole lot more indebted that we think.

Critics of government spending often say that U.S. government owes more than the total value of the gross domestic product, nearly 103%, as a reason for why we need to rein in the government and fast. This is the same measurement, for instance that is used by the folks who run the U.S. debt clock, and is featured on the website of the Republican-run House Financial Services Committee.

Those who like to downplay the U.S. government’s overall indebtedness will usually point to smaller figure, just under 74%, which is the total debt held by the public. That excludes debt owned by arms of the federal government, like social security trust fund. The thinking goes that if the government owes this money to itself, that’s not nearly the same thing as owing money to a member of the public or a foreign government.

But a recent analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago may indicate that both the group that dismiss the U.S.’s debt as manageable and those who worry about it, may be understating just how in hock the U.S. government is. Here’s the chart from their study:?

“債務悲觀派”引用的數字在這張表的右上角。再向下兩行則是那個較小的債務/GDP比例。不過，如果把計算范圍擴大到今后的社保支出，甚至囊括政府承諾的未來老年人醫保和公務員養老金，我們就會得到右下角的那個數字。也就是說，美國的實際債務負擔竟然高達GDP的288%。

但這或許還不足以說明全部問題。

The number debt worrywarts cite is at the top on the right. A little further down is the smaller percentage. But as you broaden out the measures of debt to include what we owe future social security recipients, and even further to include what we owe in promises to future seniors in terms of Medicare or current government workers in the form of pensions, you get the bottom number, that our actual debt load is a staggering 288% of GDP.

And that may be understating things as well.

上表也來自芝加哥儲備銀行的這項研究，它從另一個角度估算了今后的政府債務。從中可以看出，美國政府對民眾的承諾，與其他富裕國家存在明顯差別。用這一標準衡量，美國的債務負擔甚至比希臘還重。

芝加哥儲備銀行經濟學家麗貝卡·弗里德曼和馬克·賴特認為，美國的預期債務高于其他富裕國家的原因在于醫療保健。他們在電子郵件中寫道：

美國負債多的原因是美國的醫療成本高于其他國家，而且增速也一直較快。再加上美國的人口增速較高（和歐洲相比），就會產生高額債務。就算考慮到歐洲（和日本）的人口老齡化速度超過美國，情況也依然如此。

不過，兩位經濟學家也強調，這種更為全面地衡量政府債務的方法存在缺陷，其中最重要的一點是它依賴于對今后醫療成本的預估。以上數字并未考慮到最近醫療成本增速的下降，而這正是奧巴馬醫改法案宣揚的功效。如果這種趨勢延續下去，美國未來醫療費用的凈現值就會變小。但這又是一個備受爭議的話題。

那么，我們為什么不采取更多措施，以解決美國債務不斷膨脹的問題呢？

六年前，共和黨在中期選舉中勝出，這是美國國會歷史上最為一邊倒的角逐之一。共和黨重新獲得了眾議院控制權，還讓民主黨失去了參議院絕對多數地位。當時，聯邦政府的債務和赤字都在飛速上升，剛剛嶄露頭角的茶黨在選舉中非常充分的利用了這一點。

但到了2011年，聯邦政府赤字開始下降。此時，新當選的共和黨議員剛剛上任，甚至還沒來得及提議削減預算。這是因為經濟重新開始增長，聯邦政府在失業保險等方面的支出下降，稅收則隨著經濟的擴張而上升。再加上2011年“自動減赤”法案等預算控制措施，預算赤字出現了逐年下降態勢。

此外，公眾開始反對削減債務。皮尤研究中心2016年1月份公布的調查結果顯示，目前有56%的美國人認為削減預算赤字是政府的首要任務，低于2013年72%的高點。蓋洛普最近的調查表明，只有5%的美國人認為聯邦預算赤字和聯邦債務是最重要的問題，認為“對政府不滿”才是首要問題的美國人則占16%。

總統候選人紛紛隨著公眾意見的轉向而動。2012年大選中，落敗的共和黨曾提出偏向富人的減稅方案，并把醫保從一項不受限制的福利變成了基本上由各州負責的補助項目。這次，共和黨總統侯選人都放棄了壓縮政府赤字和債務的打算。

政治風向在此時發生轉變著實讓人覺得諷刺。2010年公眾患上“債務恐懼癥”時，美國嚴重開工不足，削減政府開支的措施只會讓低迷的經濟雪上加霜。如今，預算赤字處于歷史最低水平，經濟學家認為美國處于充分就業狀態，而且相關預測表明今后的預算赤字只會隨著美國人口老齡化而上升，這實際上正是認真討論如何把對民眾的承諾變成現實的絕佳時機。

美國政府可能還有充足的時間，可以讓聯邦以及各州的稅收更貼近于對公眾的承諾。但它越早通過稅收、福利和醫療改革來解決這個矛盾，轉型的痛苦就越小，對納稅人和受益者來說都是如此。（財富中文網）

譯者：Charlie

校對：詹妮

The above chart from the same study relies on a different set of estimates for future liabilities, but the difference between what the United States has promised and what other wealthy nations have promised their citizens in the future is stark. Even compared to Greece, by this measure the U.S.’s debt looks onerous. According to Rebecca Friedman, Mark Wright, economists with the Chicago Fed, American projected liabilities are higher than its wealthy peers because of health care. In an email they write:

These numbers are high for the USA because health care costs are higher in the USA than elsewhere, and have been rising faster. When this is combined with relatively fast population growth (compared to Europe), a large liability is found. This is true even after controlling for the fact that much of Europe’s (and Japan’s) population is aging faster than the USA.

The authors also stress, however, that this more comprehensive measurement of government debt has its drawbacks, most importantly that it relies on projections of future healthcare costs. The above figures do not take into account a recent slowing of growth in healthcare costs that Obamacare advocates attribute to the effects of the law. If that trend continues—a hotly debated proposition—than the net present value of our healthcare promises will be smaller.

So the question is why haven’t we done more to address the nation’s looming debt problems. Six years ago, the Republican party won one of the most lopsided victories in Congressional history, winning back the House of Representatives and robbing Democrats of their supermajority in the Senate. Back in 2010, the federal debt and deficit were growing at a dramatic pace, and the newly emergent Tea Party Republicans used this trend to great effect at the ballot box.

But even before these newly-elected Republicans had a chance to agitate for budget cuts, the federal deficit was already shrinking by the time the new Republican class took office in 2011. That’s because as the economy started to grow again, federal spending on programs like unemployment insurance declined, and tax receipts grew as a function of an expanding economy. When you add to this budget control measures like the 2011 “sequestration” bill, we have seen the budget deficit fall year after year.

Second, public opinion has turned against debt fighting. According to a poll released in January by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans who say that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority is now at 56%, down from a high of 72% in 2013. A recent Gallup poll showed that just 5% of Americans consider the federal budget deficit and debt to be the most important issue, while the number one issue, “dissatisfaction with government,” garnered 16% support.

Presidential candidates are responding to this shift in public opinion. After the Republican presidential ticket lost in 2012 on a platform of tax cuts tilted towards the rich and turning Medicare from an open-ended entitlement to a block-grant program run mostly by the states, GOP candidates this time around have abandoned running on a plan to shrink deficits and the debt.

The timing of this shift in political winds is painfully ironic. Back in 2010, when debt-phobia was gripping the public, the U.S. economy was severely under capacity, and so efforts to cut government spending would have only served to compound the economic malaise at that time. Today, with an historically low budget deficit, economists estimating that we’re at full employment, and budget projections showing that the deficit will only grow from here as the country ages, it is actually an opportune time to have a serious discussion over how to pay for the things we’ve promised American citizens.

The United States likely still has plenty of time to bring its tax receipts more in line with its promises to citizens, both on the federal and state levels. But the sooner it begins to address the discrepancy, through tax, entitlement, and healthcare reform, the less painful the transition will be for taxpayers and the receivers of benefits alike.