掌握考研英语阅读题目出处，阅读轻而易取

考研英语阅读理解的素材到底是哪里来的啊？今天偷偷告诉你，它都是从外刊里面选的，阅读同源外刊时文从根本上扼住阅读的喉咙，成功逆袭考研。下面就是今天给大家分享的2017年美国特朗普被选作总统那一段时间的外刊文章。文末还附中文翻译，可以对照着看。

正文：

What does the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, agree on? In addition to an enthusiasm for power, two things unite the conservatism of Stephen Bannon, the president's consigliere, with the conservatism of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ry-an, the Republican leaders in Congress. One is tax cuts, on which he has thus far been vague. The other is deregulation, which matters more to Republicans now than debt or deficits.

Something has indeed dampened America's economic dynamism. Startups are rarer, labour is less mobile and fewer people switch jobs than they did three decades ago. Regulation has shot up the list of small firms' concerns since 2008. Yet there is a right way and a wrong way to deregulate. Markets need clear rules, enforced pre-dictably. Less regulation is not always better: the freedom to dump toxic sludge into rivers will not improve Americans' living standards. Republicans must ensure that

they do the right sort of deregulation ( see article) . There is little to be gained from crudely hacking; at Mr. Obama's handiwork, while ignoring systemic problems that have led to a proliferation of rules, whoever is in charge.

By one estimate, the number of federal edicts has risen steadily for almost four decades, from about 400,000 in 1970 t0 1. 1m. One reason for this proliferation is that bureaucrats much prefer writing new rules to rubbmg out old ones. They scruti-nise policy rigorously, but usually only in advance, when little is known about its impact. Little effort is made to analyse whether a rule's benefits still justify its costs once implemented. Instead, politicians rely on gut instinct to tell them whether firms' complaints about over-regulation are reasonable.

Political gridlock is another reason for regulatory sprawl. When a president is blocked by a hostile Congress, as Mr. Obama was for most of his time in office, the temptation is to exercise power by issuing rules through the federal bureaucracy. The same is true at the state level. But even when Washington is unified, as it is now,

Congress and the executive branch find it much easier to issue new edicts than to un-do old ones.

The result is a proliferation of rules at all levels of government-rules that can slow innovation, but which also impede straightforward tasks, such as fixing bridges. Fixing this requires substantial change. Mr. Trump's demand that agencies must abolish old rules before writing new ones sounds crude, but provides a welcome m-centive for bureaucrats to look again at old rulings.

The White House should bolster the office that scrutinises proposed rules. It has seen its staff fall by half over three decades, while regulations have proliferated. Congress should appoint experts to scrutinise regulation on its behalf, as it has done for budgetary matters. This new body could review old rules as a matter of course. If these edicts do not pass a cost-benefit analysis, they should expire automatically.

Unfortunately, the approach many Republicans favour is to make it harder for the executive branch to do anything at all. Some want to subject every new rule to a congressional vote. Yet few politicians are equipped to scrutinise, say, arcane finan-cial rules. Such votes are more likely to create feeding opportunities for lobbyists-and, in turn, more of the exeruptions that increase regulatory complexity and harm competition.

The Republicans are right that America's regul_atory sprawl needs tackling. A well-executed drive to cut red tape will doubtless bring economic.gains. But it will be pains-taking work, a far cry from the slash-and-burn approach the Trump team has in mind.

Crude rule-cutting and budget-slashing will simply leave America dirtier and less safe.

以唐纳德·特朗普为首的共和党人在什么方面能达成一致？除了对权力有着极高的热忱，还有两件事能够联合总统高级顾问史蒂芬·班农的保守主义与美国国会共和党领袖明奇·麦康奈尔和保罗·瑞恩的保守主义。第一是减税，截至目前在这一点上特朗普仍含糊其辞。另一点是放松监管，如今对共和党而言此项比债务或赤字更为重要。

美国的经济活力的确受到了抑制。初创公司变少，劳动力流动性减弱，换工作的人与30年前相比也少得多。自2008年以来，监管已经让许多小公司越来越忧心忡忡。但是放松监管的方法有对的也有错的。市场需要清晰的规则，并以可预见的方式执行。监管不一定总是越少越好：例如向河里倾倒有毒污泥的自由就并不能提升美国人民的生活水平。共和党人必须确保他们做到了正确的放松监管（见条款）。粗鲁地砍掉奥巴马的作品，却忽略了那些系统性问题：无论谁掌权都会导致繁文缛节的滋生，此种做法毫无益处。

据估算，近40年来联邦法令的数量一直在稳步增加，从1970年的约40万条增至现在的110万条。法令激增的原因之一就是相比废除旧法规，官僚们更愿意去制定新法规。他们一丝不苟地仔细审查政策规定，但通常就只是在发布之前，而且此时的他们对政策可能会产生的影响知之甚少。他们极少会去分析某项法规一旦实施，其益处是否仍能抵得上成本。相反，政客们是仅靠直觉就来判断公司对过度监管的抱怨是否合理。

政治僵局是法规蔓生的另一个原因。如果总统受到敌对国会的掣肘，正如奥巴马执政期里大部分时间那般，那么通过联邦官僚机构发布法规来行使权力就成了一种诱惑。在各州层面也是一样。但即便是华盛顿像现在这样团结统一，国会和行政部门也会觉得发布新法令比废除旧的容易得多。

结果就是各级政府的法规层出不穷，这些法规不但会减缓创新，也阻碍了开展直接简单的任务，例如修桥。要矫正这一点需有实质性的改变。特朗普要求各机构在起草新法规之前先废除旧法规，这听起来粗暴，但为官僚们提供了一个颇受欢迎的诱因，让他们再去看看旧的法规。

白宫应该支持建立审查法规提案的办公室。30年来它眼见着自己的员工减少了一半，而法规条例却在不断激增。国会应当指定专家来代表其审核法规，就如它在预算事宜上所做的那般。理所当然地，这个新主体也能审查旧法规。如果这些法令没有通过成本效益评估，则应当自动废止。

遗憾的是，很多共和党人最喜欢的事是让行政部门难有任何作为。一些人希望每项新法规都需通过国会投票。但极少有政客能具备胜任复杂法规审核的能力，比如晦涩难懂的金融法规。这样的投票更有可能为游说者提供生财的机会，进而会产生更多的豁免。此举只会增加法规的复杂性并损害公平竞争。

美国庞杂的监管的确需要处理解决，在这一点上共和党是对的。砍掉繁文缛节若是执行妥当，无疑会带来可观的经济收益。这将是项艰难困苦的工作，但与特朗普团队心中有意采用的大刀阔斧的方式相去甚远。粗暴地砍掉法规、削减预算只会令美国的环境更糟糕、更不安全。