2023考研英語閱讀繁文縟節該省省了

　　CHEERS greeted Barack Obamas hiring of CassSunstein away from the University of Chicago. MrSunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge oflifting the heavy hand of regulation from Americaseconomy. Known for his clever economics, MrSunstein favours a libertarian paternalismpolicies that nudge, but do not force, people to dothe right things. For example, making people optout instead of opting in to pension plans makesmany more sign up, to their benefit. And MrSunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiencystickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

　　奧巴馬從芝加哥大學挖來了凱斯?桑斯坦，此舉讓人歡欣鼓舞。桑斯坦律師現在是白宮信息和監管事務辦公室主任，負責降低監管對美國經濟的干預力度。桑斯坦因其睿智的經濟學思想而名滿天下，并且信奉對經濟應持家長式的自由管理態度;他認為政策應該引導，而不是強制人民去做正確的事情。比如說，讓人民選擇是否放棄而不是選擇是否加入退休金計劃使得更多人參與該計劃，并最終讓他們自身受益。桑斯坦還參與了飲食建議與汽車燃油效能標簽的重新設計，使得之前混亂的信息更易于理解。

　　Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obamatelling every agency to slimits rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580proposals received from the departments under his purview. And he says real savings are onthe way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems willsave $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in theMedicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies haveresponded not grudgingly , but eagerly.

　　桑斯坦現在負責監督一年前奧巴馬總統頒布的行政命令，該命令要求各有關部門精簡其規章制度。桑斯坦表示所有部門都執行了該法令，并且他管轄的部門已經上交了580份提案。他表示更切實有效的節省計劃即將展開。要求各州配備污染蒸汽回收系統的措施可以在未來五年內節約4億美元。讓醫生和醫院更方便參與老年人的美國聯邦醫療計劃的舉措可以節約約50億美元。桑斯坦補充說，各級部門并不是勉強應付該行政令，而是予以積極配合。

　　But the Obama administration has added to the rulebook at the same time as it istrimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. InGeorge Bushs first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits thancosts, as the agencies economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. Theoverall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study forthe Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008,though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the WorldBank, which one of the banks researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it asan urban myth.

　　但是奧巴馬政府在精簡法規的同時又在對法規進行增補，增補的許多法規都規模甚大：其中有194項經濟影響超過1億美元的法規都已在聯邦公報上公布。在喬治布什政府上臺的前三年，類似的法規有141項。甚至即使大多數法規帶來的利益都高于其成本，監管的范圍仍然沒有縮減。監管的總成本仍是個未知數，計算方法也飽受爭議。一項對于小型企業管理局的研究表明2008年僅不完全統計分析的監管成本就高達1.75萬億美元，該統計基于世界銀行研究出的分析方法，但該銀行的研究人員表示該方法其實并不適用于此，桑斯坦也反對該結果，認為這是個都市傳說。

　　Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimizing costs by counting only hoursspent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs maybe found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. Atthe same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued . Theagencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no onedoubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

　　與此同時，行政部門被指控通過僅計算文案工作時間和設備成本來最小化成本以迎合監管要求。真實成本可能體現在由于監管過度導致人們為了應付政策而表現出來的反常行為中，而這些成本是難以量化的。同時，各部門可能過高估計了監管所帶來的收益，因為各部門都使用自己的數據和計算方法來計算收益。但是唯一可以確定的是，想要符合日漸繁雜的規章制度已經是難上加難了。

　　Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must gothrough the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: commentperiods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulatedindustries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs intocompliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

　　而且，降低監管力度的政策同樣難以實施。法規的精簡需要和增加法規走同樣復雜冗長的流程：評估階段，內部評審，不停的幕后游說。諷刺的是，飽受法規監管折磨的工業企業實際上反而可能希望保留這些法規監管，因為他們不希望他們由于遵守法規所帶來的沉沒成本因為法規的消失而變成新興競爭對手的利益。

　　Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republicancandidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. Asecond idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits,modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a boardof outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closurecommission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet anotheris creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created anOffice of the Repealer, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governorand legislature. Lastly, automatic sunsets of laws have their fans, though Congress couldmindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills .

　　為了應對上述最后一個問題，許多提案紛紛浮出水面。其中一個是由共和黨候選人Mitt Romney所支持的提案，內容為每當有一項新提案提出時，就廢除一項對應的舊法規。第二個辦法是以廣受尊崇的國會預算辦公室為藍本，成立一個真正獨立的評判機構來裁定法規的成本與利益。第三個辦法是成立一個由外界知名人士組成的董事會，以幫助打破政治僵局，比如說就像之前的軍事基地重組與關閉委員會一樣，可以督促國會關閉軍事基地。但是還有一個辦法是成立一個全職機構負責回審監管法規：堪薩斯州率先成立了廢止議案辦公室，功能是匯總對于議案的反對意見并向政府和立法機關提交議案的廢止建議。除此之外，還有人支持法律的定期自動終結，當然國會還是可能會無腦地重新為各項議案中提及的即將到期的法律延期的。

　　Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress moreheavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind ofthing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, notsubsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of Americas regulatory woes. Jim Cooper, aDemocratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: People vote on thingsthey have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read. He further despairs ofthe power of special interests to bend Congresss will: There is a pimento lobby, he says ofthose who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served insideolives. You do not want to cross the pimento people. In such an environment, gettingthings undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.

　　最后不得不說，REINS法案是個糟糕的決定。眾議院通過了該法案，國會可以越俎代庖地更多地參與規章制定環節。還有什么比行政部門更爛的類似機構嗎?舍國會其誰! 經濟合作與發展組織在1999年的研究表明，美國監管困境的核心問題是那些寫的很爛的法律，而不是隨后的規則制定。來自田納西州的民主黨下議院議員Jim Cooper對他的同事表示：國會那些家伙根本不去看他投了什么一票，也沒時間看，更看不懂那些玩意兒。他更對國會的意愿屈服于特殊利益集團之事表示失望：有一個關于辣椒的游說，他指的是那些為了爭取那些種小紅辣椒的人的利益的人，你們都不敢得罪那些辣角色。在這樣的環境里，要把現有法規取消不比建立新法規更簡單，甚至有可能更難。

　　CHEERS greeted Barack Obamas hiring of CassSunstein away from the University of Chicago. MrSunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge oflifting the heavy hand of regulation from Americaseconomy. Known for his clever economics, MrSunstein favours a libertarian paternalismpolicies that nudge, but do not force, people to dothe right things. For example, making people optout instead of opting in to pension plans makesmany more sign up, to their benefit. And MrSunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiencystickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

　　奧巴馬從芝加哥大學挖來了凱斯?桑斯坦，此舉讓人歡欣鼓舞。桑斯坦律師現在是白宮信息和監管事務辦公室主任，負責降低監管對美國經濟的干預力度。桑斯坦因其睿智的經濟學思想而名滿天下，并且信奉對經濟應持家長式的自由管理態度;他認為政策應該引導，而不是強制人民去做正確的事情。比如說，讓人民選擇是否放棄而不是選擇是否加入退休金計劃使得更多人參與該計劃，并最終讓他們自身受益。桑斯坦還參與了飲食建議與汽車燃油效能標簽的重新設計，使得之前混亂的信息更易于理解。

　　Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obamatelling every agency to slimits rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580proposals received from the departments under his purview. And he says real savings are onthe way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems willsave $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in theMedicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies haveresponded not grudgingly , but eagerly.

　　桑斯坦現在負責監督一年前奧巴馬總統頒布的行政命令，該命令要求各有關部門精簡其規章制度。桑斯坦表示所有部門都執行了該法令，并且他管轄的部門已經上交了580份提案。他表示更切實有效的節省計劃即將展開。要求各州配備污染蒸汽回收系統的措施可以在未來五年內節約4億美元。讓醫生和醫院更方便參與老年人的美國聯邦醫療計劃的舉措可以節約約50億美元。桑斯坦補充說，各級部門并不是勉強應付該行政令，而是予以積極配合。

　　But the Obama administration has added to the rulebook at the same time as it istrimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. InGeorge Bushs first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits thancosts, as the agencies economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. Theoverall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study forthe Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008,though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the WorldBank, which one of the banks researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it asan urban myth.

　　但是奧巴馬政府在精簡法規的同時又在對法規進行增補，增補的許多法規都規模甚大：其中有194項經濟影響超過1億美元的法規都已在聯邦公報上公布。在喬治布什政府上臺的前三年，類似的法規有141項。甚至即使大多數法規帶來的利益都高于其成本，監管的范圍仍然沒有縮減。監管的總成本仍是個未知數，計算方法也飽受爭議。一項對于小型企業管理局的研究表明2008年僅不完全統計分析的監管成本就高達1.75萬億美元，該統計基于世界銀行研究出的分析方法，但該銀行的研究人員表示該方法其實并不適用于此，桑斯坦也反對該結果，認為這是個都市傳說。

　　Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimizing costs by counting only hoursspent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs maybe found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. Atthe same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued . Theagencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no onedoubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

　　與此同時，行政部門被指控通過僅計算文案工作時間和設備成本來最小化成本以迎合監管要求。真實成本可能體現在由于監管過度導致人們為了應付政策而表現出來的反常行為中，而這些成本是難以量化的。同時，各部門可能過高估計了監管所帶來的收益，因為各部門都使用自己的數據和計算方法來計算收益。但是唯一可以確定的是，想要符合日漸繁雜的規章制度已經是難上加難了。

　　Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must gothrough the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: commentperiods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulatedindustries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs intocompliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

　　而且，降低監管力度的政策同樣難以實施。法規的精簡需要和增加法規走同樣復雜冗長的流程：評估階段，內部評審，不停的幕后游說。諷刺的是，飽受法規監管折磨的工業企業實際上反而可能希望保留這些法規監管，因為他們不希望他們由于遵守法規所帶來的沉沒成本因為法規的消失而變成新興競爭對手的利益。

　　Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republicancandidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. Asecond idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits,modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a boardof outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closurecommission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet anotheris creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created anOffice of the Repealer, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governorand legislature. Lastly, automatic sunsets of laws have their fans, though Congress couldmindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills .

　　為了應對上述最后一個問題，許多提案紛紛浮出水面。其中一個是由共和黨候選人Mitt Romney所支持的提案，內容為每當有一項新提案提出時，就廢除一項對應的舊法規。第二個辦法是以廣受尊崇的國會預算辦公室為藍本，成立一個真正獨立的評判機構來裁定法規的成本與利益。第三個辦法是成立一個由外界知名人士組成的董事會，以幫助打破政治僵局，比如說就像之前的軍事基地重組與關閉委員會一樣，可以督促國會關閉軍事基地。但是還有一個辦法是成立一個全職機構負責回審監管法規：堪薩斯州率先成立了廢止議案辦公室，功能是匯總對于議案的反對意見并向政府和立法機關提交議案的廢止建議。除此之外，還有人支持法律的定期自動終結，當然國會還是可能會無腦地重新為各項議案中提及的即將到期的法律延期的。

　　Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress moreheavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind ofthing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, notsubsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of Americas regulatory woes. Jim Cooper, aDemocratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: People vote on thingsthey have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read. He further despairs ofthe power of special interests to bend Congresss will: There is a pimento lobby, he says ofthose who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served insideolives. You do not want to cross the pimento people. In such an environment, gettingthings undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.

　　最后不得不說，REINS法案是個糟糕的決定。眾議院通過了該法案，國會可以越俎代庖地更多地參與規章制定環節。還有什么比行政部門更爛的類似機構嗎?舍國會其誰! 經濟合作與發展組織在1999年的研究表明，美國監管困境的核心問題是那些寫的很爛的法律，而不是隨后的規則制定。來自田納西州的民主黨下議院議員Jim Cooper對他的同事表示：國會那些家伙根本不去看他投了什么一票，也沒時間看，更看不懂那些玩意兒。他更對國會的意愿屈服于特殊利益集團之事表示失望：有一個關于辣椒的游說，他指的是那些為了爭取那些種小紅辣椒的人的利益的人，你們都不敢得罪那些辣角色。在這樣的環境里，要把現有法規取消不比建立新法規更簡單，甚至有可能更難。