泽熙美文Reading Comprehension
Entitlement Myths by Michael Kinsley
The Peter G. Peterson foundation, a new and welcome arrival on the national scold scene, announced in a December press release that the U.S. is bankrupt. Not the government but the whole country and everyone in it. As of Sept. 30, the PGP folks reported (using figures from the Federal Reserve), the value of everybody’s assets was $ 56. 5 trillion. The value of our liabilities (public and private) was $ 56. 4 trillion. Given what has happened to real estate and the stock market since Sept. 30, it seems certain that we now owe more than we are worth.
It seems certain, that is, if the PGP folks are correct. Now, I’m all for doom ‘n’ gloom—they’ve done very well for me in the journalism business over the years—but this struck me as too bad to be true. And on closer examination, it is. About $ 40 trillion of PGP’s $ 56 trillion in liabilities is its calculation of future Medicare and Social Security benefits ($ 34 trillion of it is Medicare alone), which Congress has promised to future senior citizens but has made no provision to pay for. This is the entitlements nightmare we hear so much about. Trouble is, the PGP folks seem to have forgotten about this $ 40 trillion of dubious promises when totting up the assets of people who will (or possibly won’t) get the benefits. If these entitlement promises are real government debts, they are also real assets for the people who will enjoy them. If (as we gloomsters suspect) they aren’t real for the future recipients, then they aren’t real for the government either.
American families may have borrowed irresponsibly, and may have elected politicians who borrow even more irresponsibly on their behalf, but the typical American family is not bankrupt. The average couple age 65-74 has accumulated a net worth (not counting entitlement promises as either assets or liabilities) of $ 691,000, according to the Federal Reserve in 2004. Shortly thereafter, of course, they start to die in large numbers. And what happens to the $ 691,0007 Generally it goes to the children and grandchildren.
It’s often said, on the subject of underfunded entitlements, that we are “robbing future generations.” This is not completely true. You can’t literally steal, say, a vacation home from the year 2050 and plant it next to a beautiful lake in 2009. Nor can you beg, borrow or steal money in 2050 and spend it in 2009. But you can reduce your savings rate in 2009, spend the money instead and leave a less prosperous country in 2050. And if you borrow money from foreigners in 2009, as we have been doing more and more, they can indeed come knocking in 2050 and demand their money back. With interest.
Meanwhile, though, families—middle-class families, not just rich ones—are passing hundreds of thousands of dollars on to the next generation in their wills. Fair enough, if they worked for the money and saved it. In fact, wonderful. But much of this generosity, it turns out, is made possible by Social Security and Medicare. How much? Hard to say. What is easier to say with certainty is that most people today and in the future will get more back from these entitlement programs in retirement than they put in during their working lives.
Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be insurance against the perils of old age: poverty and illness. They are not supposed to be gifts or subsidies to the children of retirees. Yet that is what, in large part, they have become. The reason for insurance is that you can’t predict the future. If an elderly woman has diabetes and her husband needs heart surgery, then dies anyway, leaving her impoverished, Medicare and Social Security should be there for her. And if it all costs far more than she ever put into the system, that’s O. K. too.
But if our elderly woman dies with $ 691,000 in the bank, it’s evident that she didn’t need the government money to pay for her health care or to avoid plunging into poverty. She wasn’t lying or cheating—she might have been legitimately worried—but her worries turned out to be unnecessary. And society, having kept its promise to her, should get at least part of that money back. Oh, yes, designing a system to achieve this would be a nightmare—maybe impossible. The incentive for old folks to squander their savings would be enormous. Maybe it can’t work. But the point is worth keeping in mind as we enter President Obama’s “new age” of “hard choices.” And the children? Let them rob their own children, just as their parents did. (Time, February 9, 2009)
1. The topic of the passage can best be generalized as ______.
A.economic crisis in America
B.medicare and social security in America
C.American’s consumption concept
D.the Peter G. Peterson foundation’s report
正确答案：B
[解析] 主旨题。文章从彼得·乔治·彼得森基金会关于美国“全民破产”的报告入手，分析了当前的“福利神话”：旨在保障老年公民生活的社会与医疗保险面临严重危机。首先是政府准备金不足，难以兑现赔付承诺；其次是当代关国人享受的医疗与社会保险属于过度消费，政府与个人“不负责任的借款”让后代人不堪重负；再次是保险金走向不理想：受损者得到赔偿保障，但一大部分保险金变成投保人的遗产(或许只是留给后代的不能兑现的支票)。保险制度急需改革，但既可兑现承诺又可追回部分“盈余”保险金的目标几乎不可能实现，改革陷入两难，医疗与社会保险陷入“抢劫”后代人的恶性循环。由此可见，只有B项抓住了核心议题：医疗与社会保险。A项“经济危机”为语篇所处的大背景，C项“消费观”只是问题的一部分；D项为开篇之词，易被解为“中心词”，但实为文章“引子”。
2. The underlined phrase “entitlement nightmare” in paragraph 2 refers to ______
A.the government does not possess sufficient reserved fund to realize its promise.
B.the government is uncertain of its promise or possibly dishonest.
C.the proportion of future medicare benefits in liabilities is too large.
D.the PGP has forgotten $ 40 trillion when calculating people’s assets.
正确答案：A
[解析] 语义题。解题关键在于明确代词this的所指为“国会为日渐老去的公民许下了福利诺言，但没有保留相应的准备金”，了解provision与dubious promise在本语篇中的含义分别为“准备金”与“不可靠的诺言”。A项直击主题，其余三项均为事实，但非entitlement nightmare所指。
3. Which of the following statement might be the author’s point of view on “we are ‘robbing future generations.’”?
A.We are robbing future generations through excessive consumption and irresponsible borrowing.
B.We are robbing future generations because what we are leaving a country with heavy entitlement burden.
C.We are not robbing future generations because we can not steal a vacation home or money from the year of 2050 in 2009.
D.We are not robbing future generations because we are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the next generation in our wills.
正确答案：A
[解析] 推断题。文章第四段开头指出，人们认为这种资不抵债的福利享受是在“抢劫后代”，作者认为这种说法“不完全正确”，因为“你确实不能从2050年偷一个度假屋，于2009年建在美丽的湖畔，也不能从2050年偷取或者借用金钱，在2009年花掉。”接着笔锋一转，指出“但你可以降低存款率，花掉你的积蓄，从而让2050年的国家不再那么富有，也可以在2009年向外国借款，等他们在2050年连本带利一起要回，大家已经在这么做了”。可以看出，作者认为“我们的过度消费与不负责任的借款是抢劫后代的行为”。
4. What is the author’s attitude towards Peter G. Peterson foundation’s report?
A.Skeptical
B.Impartial
C.Affirmative
D.Derogatory
正确答案：C
[解析] 态度题。文章第一段末尾提出根据彼得·乔治·彼得森基金会的报告，“看来我们已经资不抵债了”。观点并不明确；第二段段首提出假设：“如果这份报告是正确的，我肯定是玩完了，但这消息太糟糕了，简直难以置信”，但接着指出“细细考察，这确实是真的”，并以数据说明。可见作者对报告持肯定态度，C答案正确。
5. It can be safely inferred from the passage all the following EXCEPT ______.
A.the system of medicare and social security in America is now in a dilemma and eager for reforming.
B.Americans are depriving their future generations of the development potential through the way of excessive consumption.
C.the future generations in America might inherit a large sum of fortune from their ancestors through the way of medicare.
D.social security was created to protect elderly citizens, but it turns out that it’s just a handout to their kids.
正确答案：D
