還記得預算赤字嗎？美國的政客們過去常常大聲譴責赤字。不過由于國家的債權人毫不擔心政府的償付能力，而赤字額度就像夏天的冰淇淋那樣容易化解，這種抱怨漸漸消失了。政府赤字與美國國內生產總值的比值連續六年下滑，截至2015年9月的那個財年降到了GDP的2.4%。不過隨后，赤字的占比又一次提高，在2016財年增長到GDP的3.2%，到2017財年增長到3.5%。歷來以抨擊政府開銷過大而聞名的國會的共和黨員在2017年年底力挺減稅，又加劇了財政赤字。做好準備聽到大量美國政府入不敷出的新聞吧。

現狀

在連續幾個月使用短期預算措施以維持政府運行之后，由共和黨控制的國會于今年2月9日通過了一份為期兩年的預算協議，將預算提高了近3,000億美元。此前，美國政府還在2017年12月實施了稅法改革。此舉可能會促進經濟增長，不過在見效之前，未來十年的聯邦收入要縮水近1.5萬億美元。隨后，總統唐納德·特朗普于2月12日提出的2019財年預算打破了共和黨在10年內平衡預算的目標。不是所有的共和黨人都滿意于黨內對于赤字態度的轉變。眾議院自由黨團（House Freedom Caucus）的成員擁護有限政府，反對鋪張浪費，他們抵制2月的預算協議以及它增加的開銷。一些財務上的保守派人士警惕地盯著盈虧線：美國財政部（U.S. Treasury Department）報告稱2018財年的預算赤字達到了六年來的最高點7,790億美元。這相當于特朗普擔任總統以來的第一個完整財年GDP的3.9%。

背景

包括前總統羅納德·里根在內的那些譴責赤字的人經常指出，如果按照政府的財務運作方式，沒有哪家公司還能存活。不過在歷史上，政府很少保持收支平衡。過去77年間，美國政府只有12次實現盈余。第二次世界大戰期間，財政赤字激增，直到戰后的和平讓美國政府在1947年至1949年間連續三年盈余。冷戰后，在比爾·克林頓擔任總統期間，美國繁榮發展，在2001財年出現了1,280億美元盈余。一年后，隨著短暫的蕭條和“9·11”恐怖襲擊發生，原本的盈余變成了1,580億美元的赤字。2008年，全球金融危機引發的蕭條就要嚴重得多，致使前總統貝拉克·奧巴馬在執政期間連續四年赤字超過萬億美元，直至2012年。盡管過程并不漂亮，但奧巴馬與共和黨控制的國會還是設法把赤字規模從2009財年的1.4萬億美元降了下來。他們的舉措之一就是2011年的《預算控制法案》（Budget Control Act），它會強制政府在2012年至2021年間自動削減2萬億美元的開銷。不過這種被政府稱作“自動減支”（sequester）的條件只在2013年觸發。隨后幾年中，國會都通過投票取消了自動減支。隨著2015年國會重啟某些稅收減免政策，財政赤字再次攀升。

爭議

現代貨幣理論（Modern Monetary Theory）的支持者表示，政府還有很大的赤字支出空間，還可以投入資金實現愿望清單上的很多條目，例如確保每個人都有工作、修復基礎設施、確保每個人都能享受醫療等。他們的論點是赤字從不重要，美國作為美元的壟斷制造者，從來沒有被迫債務違約的風險。不過其他經濟學家和政治家認為長期財政赤字的前景令人不安。到2024年，也就是7,600萬嬰兒潮中的最后一批人也達到退休年齡時，社會福利和醫療保險（Social Security and Medicare）的需求將會帶來沉重的負擔。通貨膨脹已經出現回歸的跡象，這會讓政府每年支付的利息也隨之提升。那些推動小型政府的立法者與彼得·彼得森基金會（Peter G. Peterson Foundation）和Fix the Debt等反赤字的智庫已經指出了這一威脅。一些投資者認為，2018年2月美國股市大盤重挫的原因就在于國會如今“愿意像瘋子一樣花錢”。如果國會內部反赤字的力量還不足以強大到控制開支，另一個群體也會把目標瞄準政府：債券義警（bond vigilantes）。那些對加速通脹不滿的投資者會大幅減少國債的購買量。1993年就出現過這樣的情況，當時的債券購買者給時任總統克林頓施加了壓力，有效促使他放棄了兌現給中產階級減稅的競選承諾。（財富中文網）

譯者：嚴匡正

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.