题目内容
With a new Congress drawing near, Democrats and Republicans are busily designing competing economic stimulus packages. The Republicans are sure to offer tax cuts, the Democrats—among other things—financial relief for the states. There is one measure, however, that would provide not only an immediate boost to the economy but also immediate relief to those most in need: a carefully crafted extension of the federal unemployment insurance program. The Senate approved such an extension before it adjourned in November. The House of Representatives refused to go along. It was among the greatest failures of the 107thCongress.One consequence is that jobless benefits for an estimated 780,000 Americans will abruptly stop tomorrow, even though most recipients have not yet exhausted their benefits. President Bush failed to show any leadership on this matter during the November Congress. Later, he finally asked Congress to extend the program for these workers and to make the benefits effective from Dec. 28.That"s not enough. The way unemployment insurance typically works is that states provide laid-Off workers with 26 weeks of benefits, followed by 13 weeks of federal aid. Under Mr. Bush"s scheme, federal benefits would be extended only for those who were already receiving them on Dec. 28. The extension would not cover the jobless workers who will exhaust their regular state-funded benefits after Dec. 28—an estimated 95,000 every week—but will receive no federal help unless the program is re-authorized. By the end of March, 1.2 million workers could fall into this category.The Senate saw this problem coming, and under the leadership of Hillary Rodham Clinton for New York and Don Nickles of Oklahoma, passed a bill that would not only have covered people already enrolled in the federal program but provided 13 weeks of assistance for those losing their state benefits in the new year. The House, for largely trivial reasons, refused to go along.Bill Frist, the new Senate majority leader, says he is looking for ways to put a kinder, gentler face on the Republican Party. Passing the Clinton-Nickles bill would be a good way to begin. The House should then follow suit. One of the House"s complaints last year was that, at $5 billion, the Clinton-Nickles bill was too expensive. That"s ridiculous, considering the costs of the tax cuts that House Republicans have in mind.The unemployment rate last month stood at 6 percent, the highest since mid-1994. The country could use a $5 billion shot in the arm fight about now. So could a lot of increasingly desperate people. Why did the author say the House"s complaint was ridiculous
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Revolutionary innovation is now occurring in all scientific and technological fields. This wave of unprecedented change is driven primarily by advances in information technology, but it is much larger in scope. We are not dealing simply with an Information Revolution but with a Technology Revolution.To anticipate developments in this field, the George Washington University Forecast of Emerging Technologies was launched at the start of the 1990s. We have now completed four rounds of our Delphi survey—in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996—giving us a wealth of data and experience. We now can offer a reasonably clear picture of what can be expected to happen in technology over the next three decades.Time horizons play a crucial role in forecasting technology. Forecasts of the next five to ten years are often so predictable that they fall into the realm of market research, while those more than 30 or 40 years away are mostly speculation. This leaves a 10-to 20-year window in which to make useful forecasts. It is this time frame that our Forecast addresses.The Forecast uses diverse methods, including environmental scanning, trend analysis, Delphi surveys, and model building. Environmental scanning is used to identify emerging technologies. Trend analysis guides the selection of the most important technologies for further study, and a modified Delphi survey is used to obtain forecasts. Instead of using the traditional Delphi method of providing respondents with immediate feedback and requesting additional estimates in order to arrive at a consensus, we conduct another survey after an additional time period of about two years.Finally, the results are portrayed in time periods to build models of unfolding technological change. By using multiple methods instead of relying on a single approach, the Forecast can produce more reliable, useful estimates.For our latest survey conducted in 1996, we selected 85 emerging technologies representing me most crucial advances that can be foreseen. We then submitted the list of technologies to our panel of futurists for their judgments as to when ( or if) each technological development would enter the mainstream, the probability that it would happen, and the estimated size of the economic market for it. In short, we sought a forecast as to when each emerging technology will have actually "emerged." The job of the futurist is to
Revolutionary innovation is now occurring in all scientific and technological fields. This wave of unprecedented change is driven primarily by advances in information technology, but it is much larger in scope. We are not dealing simply with an Information Revolution but with a Technology Revolution.To anticipate developments in this field, the George Washington University Forecast of Emerging Technologies was launched at the start of the 1990s. We have now completed four rounds of our Delphi survey—in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996—giving us a wealth of data and experience. We now can offer a reasonably clear picture of what can be expected to happen in technology over the next three decades.Time horizons play a crucial role in forecasting technology. Forecasts of the next five to ten years are often so predictable that they fall into the realm of market research, while those more than 30 or 40 years away are mostly speculation. This leaves a 10-to 20-year window in which to make useful forecasts. It is this time frame that our Forecast addresses.The Forecast uses diverse methods, including environmental scanning, trend analysis, Delphi surveys, and model building. Environmental scanning is used to identify emerging technologies. Trend analysis guides the selection of the most important technologies for further study, and a modified Delphi survey is used to obtain forecasts. Instead of using the traditional Delphi method of providing respondents with immediate feedback and requesting additional estimates in order to arrive at a consensus, we conduct another survey after an additional time period of about two years.Finally, the results are portrayed in time periods to build models of unfolding technological change. By using multiple methods instead of relying on a single approach, the Forecast can produce more reliable, useful estimates.For our latest survey conducted in 1996, we selected 85 emerging technologies representing me most crucial advances that can be foreseen. We then submitted the list of technologies to our panel of futurists for their judgments as to when ( or if) each technological development would enter the mainstream, the probability that it would happen, and the estimated size of the economic market for it. In short, we sought a forecast as to when each emerging technology will have actually "emerged." Various research methods are employed in order to
Queuse are long. Life is short. So why waste time waiting when you can pay someone to do it for you In Washington D. C.—a city that struggles with more than its share of bureaucratic practices—a small industry is emerging that will queue for you to get everything from a driver"s license to a seat in a congressional hearing.Michael Dorsey, one of the pioneering "service expediters", began going to traffic courts for other people back in 1988. Today his fees start at $ 20 and can go into the thousands to plead individual cases at the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication (his former employer). Mr. Dorsey knows what a properly written parking ticket looks like, and often gets fines invalidated on its failures in formality. His clients include congressmen and diplomats, as well as firms for which tickets are an occupational hazard, such as taxi operators and television broadcasters.Service expediters are not universally loved. Non-tax income, like fines and fees, makes up about 7% of local-government revenue in Washington. Mr. Dorsey alone relieves that fund of $150, 000 a year. Meanwhile, citizen advocacy groups keep complaining about expediters such as the Congressional Services Company and CVK Group that specialise in saving places for congressional hearings. Committees hearing hot topics such as energy regulation often do not have enough seats. Why should a well-heeled lobbyist who has paid $ 30 an hour to a professional place-holder grab the place Critics say this perpetuates a two-layered system :the rich get good government service, but the poor still have to wait.This seems a little harsh. Service expeditors can hardly be blamed for creating the unfair system they profit from. Anyway, it"s not only rich corporate types who benefit from their services. Poor foreigners with little English hire expediters to navigate the ticket-fighting process; so do elderly and disabled people who want to save time on errands that require long hours standing in line.And, who knows, the service expediters might even shame the bureaucrats into pulling their socks up. Back in 1999, Washington"s mayor, Tony Williams, promised to liberate citizens from the tyranny of the government queue. Things have gotten a bit better, but the 20-minute take of renewing a driver"s license can still take days. Hiring an expert to confront the bureaucratic beast on your behalf takes care of that. Which of the following is true according to the text
Human intelligence and the IQ scales used to measure it once again are becoming the focus of fiery debate.As argument rages over declining test scores in the nation"s schools, an old but explosive issue is reappearing ;What is intelligence—and is it determined largely by geneticsThe controversy erupted more than a decade ago when some U. S. scholars saw a racial pattern in the differing scores of students taking intelligence and college-entrance tests.Now, the racial issue is being joined by others. Teachers, psychologists, scientists and lawyers argue over the question of whether IQ—intelligence quotient—tests actually measure mental ability, or if findings areskewedby such factors as family background, poverty and emotional disorders.Moreover, some authorities assert that the rise in the number of college-educated Americans and their tendency to marry among themselves are creating a class of supersmart children of brainy parents—and, on the other side of the scale, alumpenproletariatof children reflecting the supposedly inferior brainpower of their parents.Critics such as Harvard University biologist Richard C. Lewontin disagree. If mental ability were largely determined by inheritance, he says, efforts to enhance intelligence through the betterment of both home and child-rearing environments could only be marginally effective. He comments:"Genetic determinism could be used to justify existing social injustice as predetermined and inevitable and would render efforts made toward equalitarian goals as useless."Supporting Lewontin in this is J. McVicker Hunt, a professor at the University of Illinois, who maintains that IQ levels can he raised significantly by exposing children at an early age to stimulating environments. Hunt"s studies show that early help in such areas as education and nutrition can raise a child"s IQ by an average of 30 to 35 points.At stake in the uproar over IQ is the national commitment to improve the capabilities of the poor by investing billions of dollars annually in educational, medical and job programs. According to some authorities, there will be expected a class of supersmart children because of
微信支付 
支付宝支付