????CBO相信如果什么也不做,，十年內(nèi)美國(guó)的赤字將更高,，導(dǎo)致私營(yíng)部門投資減少，資本效率下降,。相比掉落懸崖,，產(chǎn)值和薪資水平將更低。CBO這一預(yù)測(cè)的前提是人們工作和增加儲(chǔ)蓄的動(dòng)力,，不會(huì)超出債務(wù)減少帶來(lái)的國(guó)民儲(chǔ)蓄和投資下降,。CBO試圖量化凈效益和成本，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)十年后仍是方向難料——實(shí)際GDP的變動(dòng)幅度從下降2%到增長(zhǎng)2.1%不等,。

????這是削減預(yù)算觀點(diǎn)的最大問(wèn)題——即便是長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看,，也不知道減少支出、控制預(yù)算赤字,，是否真的值得,。我們知道短期內(nèi)不值得，因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)對(duì)整個(gè)系統(tǒng)構(gòu)成沖擊,，但即便是長(zhǎng)期,，值不值得也不清楚。CBO預(yù)計(jì)2022年以后,，預(yù)算赤字增長(zhǎng)（如果不掉落懸崖,，赤字將累積）對(duì)GDP的負(fù)面影響將更大,，推動(dòng)利率上升,。但它估計(jì)，3個(gè)月和10年期美國(guó)國(guó)債的利率只會(huì)上升0.4個(gè)百分點(diǎn)——0.4%,。,，真的嗎？整個(gè)國(guó)家承受幾年的痛苦,，就得到了這些,？避免利率上升了0.4%？

????預(yù)測(cè)是預(yù)測(cè),，很多時(shí)候它們都錯(cuò)得很離譜——特別是,，如果當(dāng)人們?cè)噲D預(yù)測(cè)的是十年后的事情。CBO有一個(gè)觀點(diǎn),，債務(wù)/GDP比率上升意味著投資和融資的難度加大,。“真實(shí)世界”（對(duì)于你和我）的情況是這樣,，但對(duì)美國(guó)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(guó)能過(guò)了這道關(guān),。去年標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾(S&P）下調(diào)了美國(guó)的信用評(píng)級(jí)，理由是美國(guó)的高負(fù)債率以及運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)失靈的政府損害了它在全世界的地位,。但市場(chǎng)不以為然,，將美國(guó)國(guó)債的收益率推到了前所未有的低位——短期美國(guó)國(guó)債事實(shí)上已為負(fù)利率。這意味著就算今年美國(guó)的負(fù)債再增加1.1萬(wàn)億美元,，由于超低利率,，其他的償債金額反而會(huì)減少。

??? 但市場(chǎng)多變,，大門隨時(shí)可能關(guān)上,。如果由于某種原因，某位債券經(jīng)理一早醒來(lái)決定做空美國(guó)國(guó)債,，他/她可能觸發(fā)美國(guó)國(guó)債的巨大拋售,，幾天內(nèi)就將收益率推至高位。在歐洲就曾經(jīng)出現(xiàn)有過(guò)這樣的情況：1個(gè)月前意大利支付的收益率還在2%左右,，下一個(gè)月就要接近7%了,。當(dāng)你的債務(wù)收入比上升時(shí)，市場(chǎng)拒絕你的可能性會(huì)上升,，但不一定,。

????因此，在削減支出的好處依然不明的時(shí)候,，政客們很難以削減支出為由,、將整個(gè)國(guó)家推入深度衰退。事實(shí)是,，《2011年預(yù)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(jīng)濟(jì)改善，如今這類選民基本上已消失,。至于討論上調(diào)最富有2%人群的邊際稅率,，則純粹是政治花招。事實(shí)上,，多項(xiàng)研究（包括CBO的研究）都顯示,，上調(diào)邊際稅率能增加的收入不多(不同于民主黨觀點(diǎn)），也不會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成真正的傷害(不同于共和黨觀點(diǎn)）,。說(shuō)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(cái)政懸崖難題,，相信各方早就就此達(dá)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.