Signature event 历史性的签字(转载)

楼主:Somers2009 时间:2010-03-24 10:20:00 点击:1453 回复:4
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置





American politics
  Signature event
  President Barack Obama signs the health-reform bill into law. What comes next?
  Mar 23rd 2010 | NEW YORK | From The Economist online
  AFTER the vote, the ceremony. On Tuesday March 23rd, just two days after the House of Representatives narrowly approved a health-reform bill, Barack Obama brought together assorted guests at the White House to witness his presidential signature marking the bill's passage into law. “We have now just enshrined…the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” said Mr Obama. Although the Senate is still to pass an accompanying “reconciliation” bill, Mr Obama will begin a public tour to promote the benefits of the new legislation, which is designed to extend health insurance to millions more Americans.
  The public events are in recognition that his new law is not widely popular among voters. Pollsters suggest that more Americans dislike the bill than like it. Even those who thought it was, on balance, better to pass than not found the delays, messy compromises and the incomplete nature of the bill frustrating.
  Yet Mr Obama can now lay claim to passing, after strenuous effort, a substantial piece of social legislation. The effect of this on the rest of the president’s agenda remains to be seen. Republicans are predicting they will make Mr Obama's Democratic Party pay at the mid-term elections. By Novermber voters may have forgotten the wrangling that got the bill through Congress, but worries about who will pay for expanded health care may persist.
  Ahead of the congressional elections Mr Obama must hope that economic conditions improve. Joblessness remains stubbornly near 10%: unless that number falls in the coming months, the Democrats are expected to take a battering.
  In turn, that bodes ill for other big legislative concerns of the president, who will struggle to generate much support in Congress from across the aisle. Not a single Republican voted for the health bill. Within minutes of Mr Obama signing the bill into law, attorneys-general from 13 states launched a lawsuit against the government claiming that the health-care act was unconstitutional.
  A much-stalled cap-and-trade legislation for greenhouse gases looks set to be re-branded as an energy bill, “Kerry-Liberman-Graham”. Besides including a Democrat, an independent and a Republican as sponsors, the bill would support nuclear power and offshore drilling, remove a threat that industrial emissions will be directly (and cumbersomely) regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and hand some of the proceeds of carbon-taxes directly to voters. This last piece, in particular, is needed to prevent the Republicans calling the bill a massive economy-wide tax.
  Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican in the Senate who is supporting the energy bill, may consider crossing the aisle to join Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, to promote immigration reform. Here, the proposals are largely warmed over from the Bush administration: some combination of a guest-worker programme, an amnesty for illegal immigrants who come out from hiding and stricter border controls in future. Any amnesty would enrage the same “tea party” activists infuriated by the health-care bill. And Mr Graham himself said he thought the plan would be a dead letter if the Democrats used reconciliation to pass health care.
  Mr Obama also wants to overhaul financial regulation as well as the “No Child Left Behind” education law from 2001. The latter reform would give the federal government a strong hand in some areas and a lighter touch in many others. Mr Obama offers a break with traditional Democratic orthodoxy by supporting merit pay for the best teachers, a scheme traditionally opposed by the unions. In theory, some of these innovations should appeal to conservatives.
  But the overall picture remains that Mr Obama’s avenues for legislative success may be cut off by his victory in health-care reform. He has spent a great deal of political capital getting his health bill through Congress. With one senator too few to break a filibuster, and Repubilcans disciplined in their opposition, it will take a change in the political climate for anything ambitious to be achieved soon. John McCain, the Republicans’ presidential candidate in 2008, has suggested that “There will be no co-operation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it.” The Republicans vow to make Mr Obama pay for his health-care reform. In the face of hardened opposition the president may concentrate on minimising his electoral losses in November.
  2,No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(Public Law 107-110),简称为NCLB,是2002年1月8日由小布什总统签署生效的一项美国联邦法律。该法律对教师队伍质量、学生的标准化考试成绩,公立学校择校制度、弥合少数族裔人群和白人之间的教育鸿沟等做出了相关规定。该法案在立法过程中得到了民主、共和两党的一致支持。
  3,美国国会立法要求法案分别在众议院和参议院获得通过。法案在参议院的通过通常需要在总共100票中获得60票赞成票,此谓绝对多数。理论上来说,假设任何一党拥有60席或更多的参议院席位,而该党参议员又都团结一致的话,那么即便反对党参议员全部投反对票,法案还是能获得通过。反过来说,如果一党在参议院的议席少于60席的绝对多数,而反对党参议员又都团结一致反对某项法案的通过,那么该法案就难以获得通过,此谓filibuster。但由于现实中一党的参议员出于各自选区利益的考虑往往没那么团结,甚至有时候会倒戈(如当了44年共和党人后去年四月突然宣布重新加入民主党的宾州参议员Arlen Specter)或者保持中立但跟反对党一起议事(如来自缅因州的共和党温和派女参议员Olympia Snowe),所以参议院的党派政治斗争极为复杂,也非常好看。
  《经济学人》(The Economist ( ))仅同意ECO (翻译其杂志内容,并未对上述翻译内容进行任何审阅查对。


0 点赞

举报 | | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
作者:compulsory2010 时间:2010-03-24 11:13:24
作者:crzhao 时间:2010-03-25 11:29:24
  Mr Obama offers a break with traditional Democratic orthodoxy by supporting merit pay for the best teachers, a scheme traditionally opposed by the unions. In theory, some of these innovations should appeal to conservatives.
  tell me again, what is the traditional way?
作者:crzhao 时间:2010-03-25 11:40:45
  They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it.”
  though there are some personal and character attack, but what this really means that Democrats passed healthcare plan by invoking reconciliation proceedure. thus denied Republicans the chance to block the bill.
  on a separate note. the explanation on simple majority and absolute majority has one misunderstanding. to pass a law only requires simple majority. however to senate needs absolute majority to end filibuster (endless debate on the proposed law). since Republicans start to filibust almost every Democrats' proposed the legislation, thus give the impression that you need absolute majority to pass a law.
楼主Somers2009 时间:2010-03-26 08:22:05
  Mr Obama offers a break with traditional Democratic orthodoxy by supporting merit pay for the best teachers, a scheme traditionally opposed by the unions. In theory, some of these innovations should appeal to conservatives.