2006 (279)
2007 (150)
2008 (104)
2009 (87)
2011 (165)
2013 (141)
2014 (167)
看看3月5日十二屆全國人大一次會議的財政報告：2012年的財政收入11.5萬億，支出11.9萬億，財政收入差額3500億。為此，國務院同意2013年由財政部代發3500億地方債，彌補地方財政收支差額。
地方債券是自2009年開始發行。說第一年隻發行了2000億。加上過去十年中央發行的國家債券，全國債券累計發行了15萬億。2010年的統計結果是10.7萬億。就是說，過去兩年，中國內債增加了4.3萬億。總債務規模已遠遠超過全年收入（11.5萬億）的規模，為收入的1.3倍。
麵對著15萬億，看看專家們的說辭：
1。在人大會上，審計署副審計長董大勝公示：中央政府和各級政府今年的負債，實際可能達到18萬億。
2。社科院財經戰略研究院研究員楊誌勇說：2012年之前，財政部每年代發地方債額度為2500億。地方債額度每年不斷增加，現在發3500億，說明地方政府資金缺口越來越大。其實，3500億根本就是杯水車薪。我說：這隻是明麵上的東西，背地裏大概是十倍有餘。眾人無語。否則根本解釋不了過去兩年增加的4.3萬億債務這個大缺口。
3。審計署披露，2013年和2014年將是地方政府債務償還期的開始，42%的地方債務於2012年年底到期，53%的地方債務將於2013年底到期。在365天內償還大約1.2萬億的債務，地方政府根本做不到。怎麽辦？
無外乎是發新債還老債。一定是發更多的中央債務，換個名義還地方債務；中央增加地方債發行額度，積極增加財政赤字；各地自行舉債，保住自己的G的P。2013年2月底有31個省區的《政府工作報告》相繼出爐，各省GDP的增速讓人瞠目：24個省區說自己的2013年GDP增長目標定在10%以上，20個省區的固定資產投資增長目標設定在20%及以上，而全國G的P增速預計最多就是7.8%。可見地方政府會如何大舉舉債，以達到“收支平均”。多數省區的GDP增長顯然主要靠投資驅動，在這種運作背景下，地方財政顯然難以支撐。
發改委的城鎮中心研究員易鵬認為，地方政府投資資金可能有兩種途徑：一是通過地方融資平台，向銀行借貸；二是通過地方平台債的形式融資。中國投資協會預測，2013年中國各類投資將增長24%，投資總額將超過45萬億元。未來3~5年的投資熱潮，是保證未來10年中國經濟年均7%的增長的基礎。到習李任期第一期結束，國家債務預期為25萬億。
簡而言之，中國各級政府的發展指標，完全靠的是舉債發榜。否則，就沒有什麽“8%”的增長。中央學會了美國的密技，各地政府明白了中央的這個秘密武器，各地政府效仿中央的作為成風。不借白不借，不花白不花，隻要保住了自己的G的P，那債務多少是沒有頂的。這就是美國的天花板可以不斷向上挪動的本質體現 --- 中國學得非常透徹。
15萬億內債，（不論老人嬰兒，每人平攤1.2萬）。這就是胡溫十年，為中國留下的現實之一。
Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 01 2013, 6:00 AM EST
Last updated Friday, Mar. 01 2013, 4:32 AM EST
How is it, the world might fairly ask, that the United States with all its brainpower and creativity can be so, well, stupid?
Not stupid in everything, of course; indeed, perhaps not in much at all. But when it comes to governing themselves, Americans are making matters harder by a resolute determination not to face real facts. And those of us who live nearby will feel the effects of this unfortunate determination.
Today, U.S. politicians will face a fact – one that they arbitrarily created, something called “sequestration.” This word, like so much about what happens in the U.S. Congress, has an unreal quality about it but very real consequences.
“Sequestration” means action caused by lack of action; namely, that when Congress in 2011 set about trying to cut the federal deficit, it decreed that in the event of failure, mandatory cuts totally $1.2-trillion would be imposed over 10 years.
Those cuts begin today: $85-billion of them touching equally the military and domestic programs. What happens is simple: The Treasury will not issue departments money for which they had budgeted, so the departments will be scaling back. And that will mean fewer services – for border service agencies, air traffic control, meat inspection, national parks, just about everything the U.S. government does.
This across-the-board method of cutting is nuts, the antithesis of proper budgeting. You might even argue that given persistently high unemployment, fewer cuts should be made now but larger ones later, if and when the economy is stronger.
No matter. When arbitrary deadlines require ill-considered measures, the results are predictable chaos, inconvenience, lack of preparation and, of course, endless name-calling and finger-pointing as to who is responsible for the mess.
Which is as it has been in Washington for some time now between the Obama administration and the majority Republicans in the House. There have been crises over the “fiscal cliff,” the “debt ceiling” and now “sequestration.” Ratings agencies have already downgraded U.S. notes. And the world is looking on with a mixture of exasperation and apprehension as the world’s leading power inflicts additional wounds upon itself, to the point where one might ask: With a political system like this, reflecting a people who love their country but cannot agree on how to govern it sensibly, who needs enemies?
“Sequestration,” accompanied by the now-familiar rhetorical Sturm und Drang, is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning, to borrow a phrase, because the nation’s debt is now so high, its deficits so large (declining in the next three years but set to rocket thereafter), and its politics so poisonous and paralytic, that further crises around the same fiscal issues are assured.
The raw, real facts are these: The federal budget deficit will be $845-billion this year, which is 5.3 per cent of GDP. That will be the first budgetary deficit less than $1-trillion in five years.
The deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will head down to a manageable 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2015, but then start soaring again owing to an aging population, rising health-care costs and growing interest payments on the national debt. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, the CBO says, debt will equal 77 per cent of GDP and be on an upward trajectory.
Perhaps like politicians everywhere, U.S. politicians prefer to punt the problem rather than tackle it. So they invent slogans. They create bipartisan commissions whose recommendations they ignore. They (and their media supporters) shout incessantly at each other. They make mini-decisions, putting off the hard ones until another self-imposed deadline.
There has to be a mixture of tax increases and spending restraint to stabilize and then improve the fiscal situation. That was the message of two bipartisan commissions; that’s the opinion of most economists.
Republicans talk about eliminating or curtailing tax deductions, but flee when asked about when, how and by how much. Democrats see no spending program they do not believe essential. And no interest group has ever benefited from a program for which a rationale for continuation could not be invented.
And so the Great Republic meets another arbitrary fiscal deadline from which it (and friends) will suffer because political actors are paralyzed by ideological certainties that shield them from facts.