The National Association of Securities Dealers is investigating whether some brokerage houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses to invest in the stock market. Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security? For it is now apparent that the Bush administration’s privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope.

Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government’s debt. “Never mind”, privatization advocates say, “in the long run, people would make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees’ benefits.”

Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds, this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing, the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all. However, privatizersclaim that these investments would make a lot of money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap most of those gains, because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits.

We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic (they aren’t), but let’s cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes involve having the government borrow heavily and put the money in the stock market. That’s because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers’gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers’ benefits.

Once you realize whatprivatization really means, it doesn’t sound too responsible, does it? But the details make it considerably worse. First, financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more important indicator of the government’s fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by cutting benefits in the distant future. After all, a government bond is a legally binding promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing more than a suggestion to future Congresses. If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045, what are the odds that those cuts would really happen? Second, a system of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street’s point of view that’s a benefit, not a cost.

1.According to the author, “privatizers”are those_____.

[A] borrowing from banks to invest in the stock market [B] who invest in Treasury bonds

[C] advocating the government to borrow money from citizens [D] who earn large sums of money in personal accounts

2.In the first paragraph, individual borrowing is cited because_____.

[A] it shares similarities with the government’s Social Security policies

[B] there is no guarantee that it will be profitable in the stock market

[C] it is not proper for the brokerage houses to persuade people to borrow money

[D] it is an indication of the Bush administration’s serious concern over the stock market

3.According to its advocates, who will gain from the privatization of Social Security?

[A] Investors in stock markets. [B] Retired workers in the future. [C] The future Congresses. [D] Account information brokers.

4.It can be inferred from the passage that Social Security privatization will_____.

[A] provide high returns for the new governments [B] be strongly opposed by Wall Street

[C] bring the future retirees more benefits [D] allow individuals to invest in personal accounts

5.The author’s attitude towards the privatization proposal is_____.

[A] impartial [B] suspicious [C] neutral [D] approval

　　答案：1.C 2.A 3.C 4.D 5.B

核心词汇和超纲词汇

(1)brokerage(n.)经纪人之业务，回扣

(2)would-be(a.)想要成为的，自称自许的，自充的，例He founded a school for would-be actors(他创办学校，训练有意做演员的人)。

(3)shortfall(n.)不足量

(4)cut to the chase 抄捷径去追猎物(不绕圈子，开门见山，单刀直入)

(5)confiscate(v.)没收，充公;征用

(6)deficit(n.)赤字，不足额

全文翻译

全国证券交易商协会正在调查一些证券行是否不适当地促使个人以房屋为抵押大举借款投资股票市场。我们能否说服该协会来调查提倡社会保障私有化的人呢?因为现在很明显，布什政府的私有化措施将产生同样的结果：借上万亿的债，投资股市并期望从中获利。

将现在用于支付社会福利金的工资税转移到个人投资帐户上，私有化就开始了。政府必须借钱来弥补这种不足。这将急剧增加政府的负债。私有化的提倡者说：没关系，从长远来看，人们在个人帐户上会赚很多钱，以至于政府可以通过削减离退休人员的福利而节省开支。

即使如此，如果个人投资帐户被用于投资国库债券，那么这个过程将一无所获。工人们从他们的帐户上得到的利息将恰好等于政府不得不为它的额外债务而支付的利息。为了弥补这种初始借入，政府将不得不大幅度减少未来福利以至于工人将一无所获。然而私有化的提倡者声称，这些投资将赚很多钱，而且实际上是政府而非工人将从中获益最大，因为当个人帐户增长时，政府将减少福利开支。

我们能长时间地争论这些方案所认为的高额的股票报酬是否现实(它们并不现实)，但是开门见山地说吧：其实，这些方案需要让政府大举借债并将钱投入股票市场。因为实际上政府会通过减少工人的福利而将他们个人帐户中的收益充公。

一旦你意识到私有化的真正含义时，它听起来不是很负责，对吗?但是细节使它更糟。首先，金融市场将恰当地把如今的大量赤字看作是政府财政健康状况的重要标志，而不是政府做出的能够在遥远的未来通过减少福利节省开支的轻率承诺。毕竟，政府债券是具有法律效力的偿还承诺，而一个猜想从现在起四十年后会削减开支的利润公式只不过是对未来众国会的一个建议。如果在2005年通过的一个私有化计划要求在2045年大幅度削减收益，那么这种情况真正发生的几率是多少呢?其次，个人帐户系统将偿付巨额的经纪费用。当然，在华尔街来看，那是收益，不是费用。