Awash in Debt, upon Whom Will the US Offload the Burden?

Published in Beijing Daily
(China ) on 9 Feburary 2023
by Fu Suixin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Andrew Engler. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
Of late, both parties are again locking horns over the debt ceiling. The immediate cause of the clash is that, as the Biden administration is forced to drastically cut government spending because the debt limit has been reached, the Republicans wish to block attempts to raise the limit. On Jan. 19, the Treasury Department began to take special measures to avoid defaulting on its debt, but if Congress is unable to raise the debt ceiling by June 5, the U.S. will default.

The federal debt has reached $31.4 trillion, averaging $94,000 per American. In the 22 years since the turn of the century, U.S. debt has increased by a factor of 4.6 and the debt to gross domestic product ratio has risen from 55% to 124%, which is higher than during World War II. Superficially, the direct causes of U.S. debt growth include war expenditures, tax cuts, economic crisis relief and welfare expenditures, but there are clearly deeper reasons for the frantic ballooning of debt.

The failure of the debt ceiling to contain the mounting debt is due to political infighting and, in an era of polarized partisanship, the debt ceiling has morphed into a bargaining chip for political games; the parties are caught up in forcing each other to make political concessions and undermine each other's plans, disregarding the interests of the country’s citizens. In 2011, when the U.S. was last facing a debt default, the two parties dragged out compromise to the last possible moment. The delay triggered violent fluctuations in the capital market and Standard & Poor's downgraded the federal government’s credit rating for the first time. For the parties, the debt ceiling debates are not about solving the problem, but an opportunity for partisan struggle and political performance. As Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio put it, “It’s a farce that works like a bunch of alcoholics who write laws to enforce drinking limits, and when a limit is reached, they do a farcical negotiation that temporarily eliminates the limit which allows them to have the next drinking binge until they reach the next limit.”

U.S.-style democracy lacks fiscal constraint and produces short-sighted policy. According to public choice theory, U.S. debt expansion is the result of incentives for voters and politicians during campaigns and elections. Voters want to minimize taxes and maximize benefits, and politicians win votes by catering to these demands. It is impossible to reduce taxes while increasing spending without borrowing. Whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is in power, both are keen to spend money to improve their position on the political scorecard. Over time, expenditures on social benefits have expanded to account for about 70% of federal spending.

It is the monetary hegemony of the dollar that allows the U.S. government to spend, unshackled by temperance. Confident in this dollar hegemony, the U.S. offloads financial burden at will, splurging while other countries foot the bill. Following the global financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve implemented three rounds of large-scale quantitative easing. Excessive issuance created spillover risks throughout the world. After the outbreak of COVID-19, the Federal Reserve again fired up the money-printing presses, announcing zero interest to pave the way for the unhindered printing. The world foots the bill under these U.S. economic stimulus policies. Under the auspices of hegemonic logic, the U.S. has formed a debt-based economic system. The main features of this system are that the government implements a deficit fiscal policy: The citizenry consumes beyond its means, foreign trade deficits accumulate and the government responds by issuing debt.

During the Nixon era, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John Connally once bragged about offloading onto other countries, "The dollar is our currency, but it is your problem." However, the reality is that the heavily indebted U.S. cannot completely offload its burden. Huge debts generate high interest rates, which will impose a heavy financial burden. Debt absorbs private savings that could have otherwise been used for investment, resulting in reduced growth. Also, debts damage the credibility of the U.S. government and its dollar, increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis and reducing investor confidence. Once the dollar hegemony crumbles, upon whom will the U.S. offload its burden?

The author is an assistant researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of American Studies.


张家栋:美国军政关系越来越难平衡
美国空军四星上将迈克·米尼汉在一份备忘录中声称“美中将于2025年开战”一事仍在美国国内和国际上发酵。美国国防部在回应米尼汉言论时则称“这些评论不代表五角大楼对于中国事务的看法”。近段时间以来,不断有美国军方高官释放这种所谓“战争预警”信号,米尼汉并不是第一个。但美国媒体注意到,军方官员这些言论与国防部长奥斯汀等拜登政府高官的表态有所矛盾,比如奥斯汀在1月初还曾在媒体上淡化台海发生军事冲突的可能性。美国国内有分析称,这种“文职与军方的分歧”可能反映出双方对中美关系看法日益脱节。

美国严格遵守文官领导军队的制度规定,但军队也相对独立于文官体系。文官对军队的规模、预算、装备和使用方向进行控制,但不直接干涉军事力量的内部组织、训练甚至军官的升迁。美国文官体系与军方有分工,就一定会有矛盾与分歧。不少人都知道,朝鲜战争期间,麦克阿瑟就曾多次抗命并公开挑战美国总统杜鲁门,最终被解除职务。

需要注意的一点是,美军将领们并非总是比文官激进。在特朗普时期,美军参谋长联席会议主席马克·米利就曾两次与中方沟通,以减少中美两国因美国内政而可能产生的军事冲突风险。在俄乌冲突中,美国的文官系统相对而言也比军方表现更加激进。美国文官,从总统、国会议长到国务卿、国防部长,普遍对于联合盟友伙伴支持乌克兰在这场冲突中坚决打下去表态强硬。美国军方这次则要低调得多。美军参联会主席米利就曾直言乌克兰在短期内取得彻底军事胜利的可能性并不大,建议乌克兰适时与俄举行谈判。美国文官显然希望在背后支撑乌克兰打下去以更多地让俄罗斯失血,实现包括肢解俄罗斯在内的更大战略目标。美国军方则希望迅速解决,比如美国以军事领域为主要关注对象的智库兰德公司发布报告称,美国应在乌克兰速战速决,否则收益就可能低于付出。

总体来看,美国文官与军方的所谓分歧主要是视角和站位的不同。除了以渲染威胁甚至发出战争预警来获取更多预算支持等众所周知的盘算,军方在具体事件或议题上往往是从纯粹的军事视角出发,以军事力量对比和军事胜负为分析框架。美国文官系统则更倾向于从政治和战略视角出发,军事考虑只是其中一个组成部分。这在很大程度上是由职业分工决定,而不是由立场决定的。事实上,美国现任国防部长奥斯汀,在短短几年前还是美军中央司令部司令呢。

但不能否认的是,军人在美国政治生活中的地位和影响确实呈现上升趋势。这比美国将领发表的激进言论本身更加危险。这主要是由于以下原因:

一是美国文官集团的决策能力退化,给了军人更多话语空间。克林顿政府在非洲的军事行动以及小布什时期发动阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争都在美国内外饱受质疑,这反而使越来越多美军高级将领出言自辩。美国军方对于在阿军事行动受到文官系统的过度限制非常不满,导致驻阿美军最高指挥官斯坦利·麦克里斯特尔与总统奥巴马矛盾表面化,最终以2010年的一次“麦克阿瑟式”解职事件告终。这些文官与军人的冲突,虽然大多以文官的胜利结束,不会伤及美国文官指挥军队的基本原则,但也让文官不断体会到军事管理的复杂性和专业性,有意无意地向军人作出更多让步。特朗普和拜登的政见多数是敌对的,但两人都任命了离开军营不足7年的前将军担任国防部长。马蒂斯和奥斯汀接连上台,连续打破美国长达70年的传统。

二是美国政治极化既导致美军政治属性上升,也突出了军人集团的政治作用。过去,美军多数人员不持公开政治立场,现在则有3/4左右的美国军人明确自己的党派倾向。另外,军人在美国社会中形象较好,这也使其成为各派政治势力竞相拉拢的对象,尤其是在政治极化现象严重时期。2020年大选中,特朗普就曾打出标语“支持我们的军队”,拜登则引用民调数据证明自己最受军人欢迎。两党候选人都喜欢寻求退役将领的支持,为自己站台甚至充当自己的“攻击犬”。

三是美军高级军官们也经常要为自己的集团利益发声。美国军人不能直接干政,但不代表不关心自己集团的利益。目前,美国军事预算水平非常高,国会中削减军费、平衡预算的声音自然也会上升。这种情况下,军方需要打预防针,提醒政界人物们各类“威胁”的迫切性和严重性。

美国军方人士的类似激进言论并不只是美国内政的事,而是对中美关系乃至整个世界的和平稳定都带来潜在风险。不断渲染鼓噪所谓战争风险可能会让相关各方进入螺旋上升的恶性循环,本身就会增加战争风险甚至导致战争发生,这种“自我实现的预言”在历史上多次出现。事实上,美国人自己也认识到这一点。美国布鲁金斯学会学者迈克尔·奥汉隆就称,“米尼汉备忘录”是一个严重错误,美国防部应更严厉地谴责这一错误。美国实力强大,其错误言行的破坏性也被等量放大。对于美国军方动辄渲染开战以及对美国军方与文官系统的关系,国际社会都在保持密切关注。(作者是复旦大学美国研究中心教授)

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Russia: This Can’t Go On Forever*

Topics

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Mexico: Big Tech and the Police State

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice