#美國國防預算再創新高##美國國債規模越來越大,怎麼還?##美國國債#
本号特從每天所浏覽的英文媒體上挑選具有一定知識性和趣味性的英國文章供大家學習英語和了解美國國情參考。喜歡讀英文原文的條友，可跳過參考譯文直接閱讀後附英語原文。
感謝各位條友評論、糾錯、轉發、收藏和關注。
為避免政府停擺，拜登3月24日簽署包括國防預算在内的1.2萬億美元臨時開支法案
美國應向國防部撥多少錢一直是政府開支辯論中一個極大的争議問題。
在經曆了巨大的混亂之後，在财政年度已過一半的情況下，國會于2024年3月23日通過了在2024财年預算内向國防部撥款8250億美元的法案，以避免政府部分關閉，所撥付的金額略低于政府要求的8420億美元。不久之前的3月11日，喬·拜登總統政府向國會送出了2025的财政預算申請，其中包括8500億美元的國防預算。
然而，一些人仍然表示，這些巨額資金仍然不夠。例如，密西西比州共和黨參議員羅傑·威克在傳統基金會的一個活動上表示他支援将國防預算增加到1.4萬億美元，宣稱“美國應該尋求戰勝中國和俄羅斯，而不僅僅是設法與它們競争。”
但是，一萬億美元的國防預算并不意味着美國就将“戰勝”中國或俄羅斯，更多的支出并不自動等同于更高品質的國防—但這在辯論中經常被忽略。
為向國會要錢，美國防部長和軍隊總參謀長出席國會關于國際預算的聽證會
美國的軍事開支超過了中國、俄羅斯、印度、沙特阿拉伯、英國、德國、法國、南韓、日本加上烏克蘭的總和。如果開支與國防品質成正比，國家安全現在應該不會是一個非常令人擔憂的問題。
布魯金斯學會的邁克爾·E·奧漢倫和亞曆杭德拉·羅查寫道：“大多數人應理性地認為，這并非完全是關于數量或哪個國家花費更多的問題，而是關于品質和我們用錢得到什麼--關于什麼軍事力量能使我們的軍隊在對國家最重要的軍事場景下維持軍事優勢的問題。”
卡托研究所的進階研究員埃裡克·戈麥斯認為，放棄軍事主導的目标--轉而與盟友分擔負擔--和減少人員将有助于減少軍事開支，但仍然能夠應對現代戰争的需求。
戈麥斯寫道：“遏制是一種能更好地反應對美國本土的微小威脅和讓盟友采取更多努力維護自己後院穩定的更有效、更便宜的極好戰略。”他還建議将同時擁有陸射、潛射、空射核彈能力的核三角轉向二分體，淘汰陸基洲際彈道飛彈，轉而開發潛射洲際彈道飛彈和戰略轟炸機。考慮到陸軍發起的旨在保護美國本土不受“偶發的”俄羅斯洲際彈道飛彈和“蓄意”發射的其它國家洲際彈道飛彈威脅的反導戰略“哨兵計劃”出現的混亂，以及未來更新洲際彈道飛彈計劃的長期拖延和成本增加，這一點尤其重要。
同樣需要注意的是，雖然國防支出表面看起來可能是持平的，但實際上增加的支出卻描繪了一幅不同的圖景。因為大部分與國防相關的支出并不直接展現在年度财政預算内的國防預算上，而是還包括政府需要支付其他開支和國債利息。
美國國債總額已經超過34萬億美元，國防和戰争開支是主要原因之一
國會預算辦公室最近的一項分析預測，到2024年，聯邦政府需要支付的債務利息就将達8700億美元，這不僅比2023年的利息增加了32%，而且超過了國防預算。預計2034年政府需要支付的利息将高達1.628萬億美元。
美國赤字正在上升有無數原因，尤其是社會保障、醫療保險和醫療補助，但最大的貢獻者之一是過去的戰争和國防支出。根據布朗大學沃森國際和公共事務研究所的一份報告，9·11事件後的戰争主要是通過借錢來支援的。“到2022财年，美國政府在這些戰争上欠下的利息就超過1萬億美元。”
這個問題不會消失。沃森研究所的進階研究員海蒂·佩爾蒂埃在2020年寫道：“即使從今天起美國停止承擔任何新的與戰争有關的費用，它未來仍将需要繼續支付戰争債務的利息”，在未來幾十年，僅9·11後的戰争利息支出就将達到數萬億美元。
再加上與國防有關的非自由支配開支，比如榮民福利等與國防預算分開的支出，美國的年度國防開支已經突破了1萬億美元大關。
換句話說，政府仍然在并将繼續為之前的軍事活動花錢。政策制定者在準許年度國防預算時最好牢記這一點。
U.S. Defense Spending Continues To Spiral Out of Control. By Varad Raigaonkar on Reason.com. April 15, 2024.
How much the U.S. should allocate to the Department of Defense remains a contentious topic in the debate over government spending.
After a great deal of chaos, on March 23—about halfway through the fiscal year—Congress approved an appropriations bill worth $825 billion for defense in FY 2024 to avoid a partial government shutdown, less than the $842 billion request by the administration. Not long before, on March 11, President Joe Biden's Administration submitted their request for FY 2025, which included $850 billion for defense.
And yet some still say those massive budgets are not enough. Sen. Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), for example, expressed support for a $1.4 trillion budget for defense at a Heritage Foundation event. "The U.S. should seek to win, not just manage, against China and Russia," he said.
But a trillion-dollar defense budget doesn't mean the U.S. will "win" against China or Russia. More spending does not automatically equate to higher quality defense—something that is often lost in this debate.
The U.S. spends more on the military than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine combined. If the amount spent were directly proportional to quality of defense, national security wouldn't be much of a concern right now.
"Many would reasonably argue that it is not all about quantity or about which country spends more, but about quality and what we get for the money—about what capabilities would allow our forces to sustain military advantages for the most relevant military scenarios of importance to the nation," write Michael E. O'Hanlon and Alejandra Rocha at the Brookings Institution.
Eric Gomez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, argues that cutting away from the goal of military dominance—instead sharing the burden with allies—and scaling down personnel would help reduce military spending while still addressing the needs of modern warfare.
"Restraint is a more effective, less expensive grand strategy that better reflects the minuscule threat to the U.S. homeland and the capacity for allies to do more to uphold stability in their own backyards," Gomez writes. He also recommends shifting away from a nuclear triad to a dyad, eliminating the land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and instead developing submarine-launched ICBM and strategic bombers. This is especially pertinent after considering the mess that has been the Sentinel program, the future ICBM replacement that is running wildly off course with protracted delays and stratospheric increases in cost.
Also important to note is that while defense spending may appear to be flatlining on the surface, added context paints a different picture. Much of defense-related expenditures don't fall directly under annual fiscal budgets but are instead wrapped up in what the government pays on the national debt interest.
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projected that federal spending on debt interests alone would reach $870 billion in 2024, which is not only a 32 percent increase from 2023's interest but is larger than the defense budget itself. The projected interest payment in 2034 is $1.628 trillion.
There are myriad reasons the U.S. deficit is rising—notably Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—but one of the biggest contributions is past spending on war and defense. According to a report from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, post-9/11 wars have been paid for mostly by borrowing money. "Through FY2022, the U.S. government owes over $1 trillion in interest on these wars," the report says.
That problem isn't going away. "Even if the United States were to stop incurring any new war-related expenses as of today, the U.S. would continue to make interest payments on war debt well into the future," wrote Heidi Peltier, a senior researcher at the Watson Institute, in 2020. Interest payments on these post-9/11 wars alone would reach several trillion dollars in upcoming decades.
Add to that the nondiscretionary spending on defense, like veterans benefits, which is separate from the U.S. defense budget, and annual defense spending has already crossed the $1 trillion mark.
In other words, the government is still paying for, and will continue to pay for, prior military activities. Policy makers would do well to keep that in mind when approving annual defense budgets.