What’s gone wrong in Washington?

THIS week Evan Bayh, a senator from Indiana who nearly became Barack Obama’s vice-president, said he was retiring from the Senate, blaming the inability of Congress to get things done. Cynics think Mr Bayh was also worried about being beaten in November (though he was ahead in the polls). Yet the idea that America’s democracy is broken, unable to fix the country’s problems and condemned to impotent partisan warfare, has gained a lot of support lately (see article).
本周，印第安纳州参议员埃文•贝赫（EVAN BAYH）（差一点就成了奥巴马政府副总统）宣布将从参议院退休。同时他责怪国会无能，没能处理好事务。犬儒派认为埃文•贝赫也担心在11月的中期选举中败下阵来（尽管民调显示他处于领先地位）。然而最近越多人相信美国民主已经破碎，无法再修补美国问题并且败成了毫无用处的党派斗争工具。

Certainly the system looks dysfunctional. Although a Democratic president is in the White House and Democrats control both House and Senate, Mr Obama has been unable to enact health-care reform, a Democratic goal for many decades. His cap-and-trade bill to reduce carbon emissions has passed the House but languishes in the Senate. Now a bill to boost job-creation is stuck there as well. Nor is it just a question of a governing party failing to get its way. Washington seems incapable of fixing America’s deeper problems. Democrats and Republicans may disagree about climate change and health, but nobody thinks that America can ignore the federal deficit, already 10% of GDP and with a generation of baby-boomers just about to retire. Yet an attempt to set up a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission has recently collapsed—again.
当然这个体制看起来不正常。尽管白宫里坐着位民主党的总统，并且民主党人也控制着参众两院（参众两院也由民主党人把持着），奥巴马还是没能施行医疗改革，而这是民主党为之追寻了几十年的目标。总量控制与交易议案旨在降低碳排放，也在众议院获得通过，然而在参议院则被晾在一边。现在一个旨在鼓励创造更多工作岗位的议案也陷在了参议院。这也不是仅仅执政党未能按既定方针执行的问题。华府看似无力解决美国深层次问题。民主党人和共和党人在气候变化，医疗等问题上的意见可能不同，但是他们都认为美国不可以忽视国家赤字，现在赤字已占GDP的10%况且战后婴儿潮时期出生的一代人又即将退休（步入老年）。此外，尝试建立两党联立的赤字裁剪委员会的计划最近又泡了汤。

This, argue the critics, is what happens when a mere 41 senators (in a 100-strong chamber) can filibuster a bill to death; when states like Wyoming (population: 500,000) have the same clout in the Senate as California (37m), so that senators representing less than 11% of the population can block bills; when, thanks to gerrymandering, many congressional seats are immune from competitive elections; when hateful bloggers and talk-radio hosts shoot down any hint of compromise; when a tide of lobbying cash corrupts everything. And this dysfunctionality matters far beyond America’s shores. A few years ago only Chinese bureaucrats dared suggest that Beijing’s autocratic system of government was superior. Nowadays there is no shortage of leaders from emerging countries, or even prominent American businesspeople, who privately sing the praises of a system that can make decisions swiftly.更多信息请访问：http://www.24en.com/
批评家们说，当区区41个参议员（总数100）誓死的阻挠议案通过；，当在参议院中怀俄明州（人口50万）和加州（人口3700万）所拥有的权力相等，这样代表全国不到11%人口的议员同样能阻挠议案通过；当，这要多谢了为政党而重新划分选区，大部分国会席位不会因为选举而改变；当可恶的博客主和广播谈话节目主持人驳倒了任何关于妥协的暗示；当大笔的游说金毁了一切的话，那么这就肯定会发生了。而这些不正常的意义远远不止于美国国内。几年前，还只有中国的官员敢说中国的专制系统是一级棒的，而如今却不乏后起之国中的领导者，甚至是杰出的美国商界人士，现在都私下赞扬这种能顷刻间做出决定的体制了。

It’s alright, Abe
阿比（林肯昵称），没事啊
We disagree. Washington has its faults, some of which could easily be fixed. But much of the current fuss forgets the purpose of American government; and it lets current politicians (Mr Obama in particular) off the hook.
我们可不同意。美国是有自己的缺点，但是部分都是可以轻易的弥补的。但是现在这混乱的局面让我们忘记了美国政治结构的真正目的，而帮当前的政客们（尤其是奥巴马）洗刷骂名。
To begin with, the critics exaggerate their case. It is simply not true to say that nothing can get through Congress. Look at the current financial crisis. The huge TARP bill, which set up a fund to save America’s banks, passed, even though it came at the end of George Bush’s presidency. The stimulus bill, a $787 billion two-year package, made it through within a month of Mr Obama taking office. The Democrats have also passed a long list of lesser bills, from investments in green technology to making it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination.
从开始，批评家们就夸大了。要说国会不会通过任何议案是不对的。看下眼前的金融危机，尽管是在布什执政最后时刻通过的，资产救援计划（成立了一个基金挽救了美国的银行）还是通过了。经济刺激计划，2年7870亿美元的经济刺激资金在奥巴马就职后一个月就获得通过。民主党人还通过了许多不太重要的议案，包括对绿色科技的投资以及让女性因受到性歧视而更方便起诉的议案。

A criticism with more weight is that American government is good at solving acute problems (like averting a Depression) but less good at confronting chronic ones (like the burden of entitlements). Yet even this can be overstated. Mr Bush failed to reform pensions, but he did push through No Child Left Behind, the biggest change to schools for a generation. Bill Clinton reformed welfare. The system, in other words, can work, even if it does not always do so. (That is hardly unusual anywhere: for all its speed in authorising power stations, China has hardly made a success of health care lately.) On the biggest worry of all, the budget, it may well take a crisis to force action, but Americans have wrestled down huge deficits before.
一份更有力的批评说美国政府善于处理急性病症（例如避免大萧条）但是对于慢性病（例如义务性开支（注1）的重担）就不行了。然而就是这一评论也可能言过其实了。布什没能进行养老金改革，但是在他努力下却通过了“不让一个孩子掉队”法（注2），这对一代人来说是对学校做的最大的改变。克林顿在福利方面进行了改革（注3）。换句话说，这个系统尽管并不是永远有效，现在还是有效的(但是这很平常：中国建发电厂的速度很快，可是医疗改革才刚刚完成)。最令人担心的预算问题，也许实施起来要冒点风险，但是美国人曾为应付巨付巨额赤字也这么做过。

America’s political structure was designed to make legislation at the federal level difficult, not easy. Its founders believed that a country the size of America is best governed locally, not nationally. True to this picture, several states have pushed forward with health-care reform. The Senate, much ridiculed for antique practices like the filibuster and the cloture vote, was expressly designed as a “cooling” chamber, where bills might indeed die unless they commanded broad support.
美国的政治体系决定了在联邦政府这一层立法是件难事。这个国家的奠基人相信，象美国一样大的国家最好的分封而治，而不应采用中央集权制。事实是，有几个州在医疗改革上走在了前列。因为觉得像阻挠议案通过和辩论后投票相当好笑，参议院被专程设计成“冷却”室，在这里除非受到广泛的支持，议案有可能在此终结。

Broad support from the voters is something that both the health bill and the cap-and-trade bill clearly lack. Democrats could have a health bill tomorrow if the House passed the Senate version. Mr Obama could pass a lot of green regulation by executive order. It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours. If, instead of handing over health care to his party’s left wing, he had lived up to his promise to be a bipartisan president and courted conservatives by offering, say, reform of the tort system, he might have got health care through; by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill. Once Mr Clinton learned the advantages of co-operating with the Republicans, the country was governed better.
而广泛的支持正是医疗卫生议案和总量控制与交易议案明显欠缺的。如果众议院通过了参议院通过的议案，明天民主党人可能会有一份医疗议案。奥巴马则会利用行政命令通过许多绿色规定。奥巴马在打败共和党人和独立参选人士赢得自己钟爱的事业之后却把工作干的一塌糊涂，这和美国难以管制是两回事。如果奥巴马不是把医疗改革的计划交给了党内左翼，耳熟实现承诺成为两党联合的主席，并且迎合保守人士做出一些类似对侵权系统的改革，他的医疗改革也许早已获得通过；如果同意了核能计划，也许就有机会通过一个关于气候的议案。当克林顿学会利用两党合作的优势后，这个国家就治理的更好了。

Redistricting the redistricters
重新划分要求再次划分选区者
So the basic system works; but that is no excuse for ignoring areas where it could be reformed. In the House the main outrage is gerrymandering. Tortuously shaped “safe” Republican and Democratic seats mean that the real battles are fought among party activists for their party’s nomination. This leads candidates to pander to extremes, and lessens the chances of bipartisan co-operation. An independent commission, already in existence in some states, would take out much of the sting. In the Senate the filibuster is used too often, in part because it is too easy. Senators who want to talk out a bill ought to be obliged to do just that, not rely on a simple procedural vote: voters could then see exactly who was obstructing what.
所以一些基本系统还是有效的，但这也不是忽视某些需要改革的部分的借口。在众议院引起狂怒的是重新分配选区。贴着“安全”标签的共和党和民主党席位意味着真正的战争将在两党活跃分子之间进行，他们都是为了各自政党提名而为。这样做只会让候选人走向极端，而降低了两党合作的机会。而已在某些州成立了的独立委员会则会受到更多的攻击。在参议院，阻挠议案通过的事情太常发生，部分原因在于阻挠起来很容易。而要想让议案获得通过，参议员有责任找到究竟在谁那儿卡壳了，因为什么原因而没有使议案通过，而不是依靠一个简单的程序性的投票。

These defects and others should be corrected. But even if they are not, they do not add up to a system that is as broken as people now claim. American democracy has its peaks and troughs; attempts to reform it dramatically, such as California’s initiative craze, have a mixed history, to put it mildly. Rather than regretting how the Republicans in Congress have behaved, Mr Obama should look harder at his own use of his presidential power.
这些缺点，还有其他的一些都应当改正。但是就算没有得到更正，他们也不至于导致现在人们所声称的破败的体系。美国的民主经历了高潮和低谷，经历了试图对其做出巨大改革的企图，比如加州的立法提案狂潮，说的好听点，最后我们得到的是一个丰富的历史。为了不因为共和党人在国会的所为而后悔，奥巴马应当更强硬点，用用手中的总统权力了。

注1：美国人认为，这三项支出是天赋权利，即sth. Entitled, 故称entitlements program。

注2：美国《不让一个孩子掉队法》（No Child Left Behind Act）是布什总统2002年初签署实施的法案，这个以形象的“不让一个孩子掉队”命名的法案，不是简单意义的“一个都不能少”。它强调教育公平――要让每一个孩子都不掉队；它旨在提高教育质量，使义务教育在新世纪上一个台阶。《不让一个孩子掉队法》从名称到主旨到实施，应该给我国教育以启示。
《不让一个孩子掉队法》作为1965年以来美国最重要的中小学改革法，内容包括：（1）建立中小学教育责任制；（2）给地方和学校更大的自主权；（3）给孩子父母更多的选择；（4）保证每一个孩子都能阅读；（5）提高教师质量；（6）检查各州学生的学习成绩；（7）提高移民儿童的英语水平。

注3：克林顿政府时期在夹缝中求改革，试图缓和美国医疗利益集团的垄断、社会人口的老龄化和医疗手段现代化导致的医疗费用的大幅度上涨，推行医疗保险制度的改革，然而未能如愿；不过在改革家庭福利保障上好不容易通过了限制领取联邦福利金的福利改革议案。它结束了自1935年以来联邦政府对穷人的没有限制的福利补助，规定多数贫困家庭享受福利救济补助的时间不得超过5年；有劳动能力的成年人在接受福利补助的两年内必需参加工作；对穷人的食品券补助作了明确限制，规定有工作能力而又不抚养孩子的人在三年之内只能领到的食品券补助；对新移民在头五年内不能领取食品券，也不能领取残疾补助。