2006 (279)
2007 (150)
2008 (104)
2009 (87)
2011 (165)
2013 (141)
2014 (167)
看看3月5日十二届全国人大一次会议的财政报告：2012年的财政收入11.5万亿，支出11.9万亿，财政收入差额3500亿。为此，国务院同意2013年由财政部代发3500亿地方债，弥补地方财政收支差额。
地方债券是自2009年开始发行。说第一年只发行了2000亿。加上过去十年中央发行的国家债券，全国债券累计发行了15万亿。2010年的统计结果是10.7万亿。就是说，过去两年，中国内债增加了4.3万亿。总债务规模已远远超过全年收入（11.5万亿）的规模，为收入的1.3倍。
面对着15万亿，看看专家们的说辞：
1。在人大会上，审计署副审计长董大胜公示：中央政府和各级政府今年的负债，实际可能达到18万亿。
2。社科院财经战略研究院研究员杨志勇说：2012年之前，财政部每年代发地方债额度为2500亿。地方债额度每年不断增加，现在发3500亿，说明地方政府资金缺口越来越大。其实，3500亿根本就是杯水车薪。我说：这只是明面上的东西，背地里大概是十倍有余。众人无语。否则根本解释不了过去两年增加的4.3万亿债务这个大缺口。
3。审计署披露，2013年和2014年将是地方政府债务偿还期的开始，42%的地方债务于2012年年底到期，53%的地方债务将于2013年底到期。在365天内偿还大约1.2万亿的债务，地方政府根本做不到。怎么办？
无外乎是发新债还老债。一定是发更多的中央债务，换个名义还地方债务；中央增加地方债发行额度，积极增加财政赤字；各地自行举债，保住自己的G的P。2013年2月底有31个省区的《政府工作报告》相继出炉，各省GDP的增速让人瞠目：24个省区说自己的2013年GDP增长目标定在10%以上，20个省区的固定资产投资增长目标设定在20%及以上，而全国G的P增速预计最多就是7.8%。可见地方政府会如何大举举债，以达到“收支平均”。多数省区的GDP增长显然主要靠投资驱动，在这种运作背景下，地方财政显然难以支撑。
发改委的城镇中心研究员易鹏认为，地方政府投资资金可能有两种途径：一是通过地方融资平台，向银行借贷；二是通过地方平台债的形式融资。中国投资协会预测，2013年中国各类投资将增长24%，投资总额将超过45万亿元。未来3~5年的投资热潮，是保证未来10年中国经济年均7%的增长的基础。到习李任期第一期结束，国家债务预期为25万亿。
简而言之，中国各级政府的发展指标，完全靠的是举债发榜。否则，就没有什么“8%”的增长。中央学会了美国的密技，各地政府明白了中央的这个秘密武器，各地政府效仿中央的作为成风。不借白不借，不花白不花，只要保住了自己的G的P，那债务多少是没有顶的。这就是美国的天花板可以不断向上挪动的本质体现 --- 中国学得非常透彻。
15万亿内债，（不论老人婴儿，每人平摊1.2万）。这就是胡温十年，为中国留下的现实之一。
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.