题目内容
Conservatism, George Will told me when I interviewed him many years ago, was rooted in reality. It started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. But conservatives now champion ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America’s present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U. S. Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U. S. economy Taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U. S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes. In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy—even to build vital infrastructure—is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, from Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth. Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U. S. on top of the world of technology and innovation. But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world’s richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don’t bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory" Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. We need conservative ideas to modernize the U. S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don’t reform but just cut and starve government—a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. The author is clearly in favor of
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
古代任官授职的称谓有哪些
Conservatism, George Will told me when I interviewed him many years ago, was rooted in reality. It started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. But conservatives now champion ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America’s present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U. S. Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U. S. economy Taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U. S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes. In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy—even to build vital infrastructure—is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, from Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth. Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U. S. on top of the world of technology and innovation. But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world’s richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don’t bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory" Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. We need conservative ideas to modernize the U. S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don’t reform but just cut and starve government—a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. That heavier taxes burden the American economy
This weekend marks 25 years since the publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s explosive report "A Nation at Risk. " Its powerful indictment of American education launched the largest education-reform movement in the nation’s history, paving the way for strategies as different as charter schools and the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. But even after a vast political and financial investment spanning two and a half decades, we’re far from achieving the report’s ambitious aims. We’ve learned a lot about school reform in 25 years, lessons that suggest that it is possible, eventually, to achieve "A Nation at Risk’s" ambitious aims. We’ve learned that a lot of public schools require incentives to lift their sights for their students. The nation’s long tradition of letting local school boards set standards isn’t going to get us where we need to go educationally. If anything, NCLB’s requirement of statewide standards needs to be taken to its logical conclusion—rigorous national standards. Make them voluntary. Give states and school systems different ways of measuring their progress against the standards by sanctioning a number of different national examination boards. And reward educators for meeting the new standards (NCLB only punishes schools for not meeting state standards, which encourages states to keep standards low because they don’t want a lot of their schools labeled as failures). But improvement can’t merely be imposed on schools from the outside. Schools are complex social enterprises; their success depends on thousands of daily personal interactions. They are, in the end, only asgood as the people in them and the culture in which those people work. So it’s crucial to get everyone in a school community invested in a school’s mission. Ownership is key. That comes from giving schools autonomy—in staffing, budgeting and instruction. From giving families a chance to choose their public schools. And from school leadership that promotes a strong sense of school identity and clear expectations of success. Reform has to come from the inside-out as well as the outside-in. There’s a human side of school reform that we ignore at our peril. But if achieving "A Nation at Risk’s" vision is becoming increasingly difficult, the alternative is really no alternative. The American economy hasn’t collapsed in the absence of public-school reform because its success is driven mainly by the small segment of the workforce that is highly educated. But the plight of the middle class that the reform reports of the 1980s warned about has worsened as the wage gap between high-school graduates and the college-educated has widened, creating an increasingly two-tiered society—and an ever-greater need to arm every American with the high-quality education that "A Nation at Risk" envisioned. One of the reform measures of NCLB is to
Conservatism, George Will told me when I interviewed him many years ago, was rooted in reality. It started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. But conservatives now champion ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America’s present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U. S. Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U. S. economy Taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U. S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes. In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy—even to build vital infrastructure—is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, from Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth. Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U. S. on top of the world of technology and innovation. But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world’s richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don’t bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory" Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. We need conservative ideas to modernize the U. S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don’t reform but just cut and starve government—a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. The Republican proposal to cut taxes
微信支付 
支付宝支付