1、Unit SevenON HUMAN NATURE Frank and Lydia Hammer我對人類的了解越多，對他們的期望就越低。和以前相比，我現(xiàn)在常常以較寬松的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)把一個人叫做好人。塞繆爾約翰遜博士1 Human nature is the basis of character, the temperament and disposition; it is that indestructible matrix upon which the character is built, and whose shape it must take and keep throughout life.

2、 This we call a persons nature.1 人性是性格、氣質(zhì)和性情的基礎(chǔ)，性格正是基于這種牢不可破的基質(zhì)之上的，它必須以這種基質(zhì)的形式存在，并將它保留終生，這種基質(zhì)，我們稱之為一個人的本性。2 The basic nature of human beings does not and cannot change. It is only the surface that is capable of alteration, improvement and refinement; we can alter only peoples customs, manners, dress

3、 and habits. A study of history reveals that the people who walked thisearth in antiquity were moved by the same fundamental forces, were swayed by the same passions, and had the same aspirations as the men and women of today. The pursuit of happiness still engrosses mankind the world over.2 人類的本性不會

4、也不能改變，只有一些表面特征才會變化、改善和進(jìn)一步提升；我們可以改變?nèi)藗兊娘L(fēng)格、舉止、衣著和習(xí)慣。一項歷史研究表明，曾經(jīng)行走在地球上的古人們和今天的男男女女們受著同樣的基本力量驅(qū)使，被同樣的激情左右并有著同樣的抱負(fù)，時至今日，對幸福的追求仍然是全世界人類全身心投入的事業(yè)。3 Moreover no one wishes his nature to change. One may covet the position of President or King, but would not change places with them unless, it meant the continuan

5、ce of his own identify. Each man sees himself as unique, and so far as he is concerned the hub of the universe, different from any other individual. Apologies are in order when Mr. Smith is mistaken for Mr. Jones.3 此外，沒有人希望改變自己的本性，有人可能會覬覦總統(tǒng)或國王的職位，但不會和他們 交換位置，除非那意味著他自己身份的繼續(xù)。每個人都把自己看成是獨特個體，而且，就 他而言，他就

6、是宇宙的中心，有別于其他任何人。如果有人把史密斯先生誤認(rèn)作瓊斯先生， 這人就該道歉。4 Every man unfolds a distinct character over which circumstances and education have only the most limited control. No two people will ever draw the same conclusions from the same experiences, but each must interpret events and fit them into the mosaic of hi

7、s own lifes pattern. Human nature is ever true itself, not to systems of faith or education. Each holds to the structureof the mold into which the soul was cast at the time of its individualization. The qualities born in one remain as potentials whether they have a chance to develop or not. Under pr

8、essure, or change of interest, they can partially or wholly disappear from view, tor considerable periods of time; but nothing can permanently modify them, nothing can obliterate them.4 每個人都表現(xiàn)出一種與眾不同的性格，而環(huán)境和教育對性格的影響都極其有限。兩個人從相同的經(jīng)歷中也不會得出相同的結(jié)論，但是兩個人會各自分析這些事件并將它們?nèi)诤系阶约贺S富的生活模式中去。人性總是忠于它本身，而不受信仰或教育體制左右。一個

9、人的個性和他獨特的天性在出生時就已經(jīng)形成了，而且不會改變。一個人與生俱來的品質(zhì)，無論是否有機(jī)會發(fā)展，都保持為潛力。在遭受壓力或興趣變化的情況下，他們會部分或全部地消失相當(dāng)一段時間，但是沒有什么能永久地改變他們，也沒有什么能把他們抹去。5 The constancy of human nature is proverbial, as no one believes that a man can fundamentally change his nature. This is why it is so difficult for one who has acquiredan unsavory re

10、putation to re-establish himself in public confidence. People know from experience that an individual who in one year displays knavish characteristics- seldomin the next becomes any different. Nor does a thief become a trustworthy employee, or a miser a philanthropist. Nor does a man change and beco

11、me a liar, coward or traitor at fifty or sixty; if he is one then, he has been one ever since his character was formed. Big criminals are first little criminals, just as giant oaks are first little acorns.5 人性的恒定性是眾所周知的，因為沒有人相信一個人能夠從根本上改變他的本性。這就是為什么一個惡名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)的人很難重建公眾對他的信心。人們憑經(jīng)驗知道某一年中表現(xiàn)出無賴性格的人不太可能在第二年有任何

12、改觀。小偷也不會變成值得信賴的員工。吝嗇鬼也不可能變成慈善家。而且，一個人不會在五六十歲的時候變成謊話精、懦夫或叛徒，如果那時候他是，那么早在他性格形成的時候他就已經(jīng)是了。大罪犯最初都是小罪犯，正如大橡樹最初都是小橡果。6 Although man is potentially perfect he is far from being actually so. If he were actually perfect there would be nothing for preachers and humanitarians to do; no use for churches, schools

13、, courts and prisons. Therefore while it is impossible to change human nature, it can be studied, controlled and directed, and this should be the supreme function of our religious, educational and social institutions.6 盡管人類有完美的潛質(zhì)，但事實上他遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒有達(dá)到完美。如果事實上他已經(jīng)是完美的， 那么那些神父、教師和人道主義者便會無事可做；那些教堂、學(xué)校、法庭和監(jiān)獄便會無所用處。

14、因此雖然人性是不可能改變的，但是人們可以研究它、控制它和引導(dǎo)它。而且這應(yīng)該是我們的宗教機(jī)構(gòu)、教育機(jī)構(gòu)和社會機(jī)構(gòu)的最高職能。7 Man is perfect as a seed is perfect, germinally. The spirit is perfect, but when it inhabits humanstructures, it participates in the imperfections of the later; and during its association with matter takes on the mortal weakness, desires

15、 and limitations. But the spirit, the inner man, remains untouched and undefiled by evil. Only the outer man- the personality and the physical body- becomes imperfect, due to ignorance, wrong thinking and violation of the law of being. The outer man, too, was originally perfect, but man has so desec

16、rated and abused it that today it is a far cry from the original model.7 人類在胚胎期是完美的，就好比一粒種子，在幼芽期是完美的一樣。精神是完美的，但它棲居到人類肉體結(jié)構(gòu)中后，便參與其中，表現(xiàn)出后者的不完美。在它與物質(zhì)的聯(lián)系過程中呈現(xiàn)出凡人的弱點、欲望和局限。但是精神，也就是人的內(nèi)在，卻仍能免遭邪惡的染指和玷污。只有外在的人個性和軀體，由于無知、思想錯誤和違反自然規(guī)律而變得不完美。外在的人，原本也是完美的，但是由于人類如此的褻瀆和濫用，今天，它已經(jīng)與原型相去甚遠(yuǎn)。8 Mans majesty and nobility ar

17、e taken for granted, although his faults and weaknesses are constantly paraded before our eyes. Only when behavior deviates from the normal does it attract attention. The good neighbor, the conscientious citizen, the kind father and faithful husband pass unnoticed. But the murderer, robber or wife b

18、eater is singled out for ublicity, because such conduct is unusual.8 人們想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為人類是偉大和高尚的，盡管他的過錯和弱點不斷地暴露在我們面前。 只有當(dāng)人類行為偏離常規(guī)時才會引起人們的注意。人們對好鄰居、良民、慈父和貞夫視而 不見，但殺人犯、搶劫犯或毆打妻子的人卻成為公眾矚目的焦點。因為這些行為非同尋常。9 Mans inherent goodness, moreover, is revealed by his countless acts of heroism, unselfishness and sacrifice. D

19、aily one reads of men saving others at the peril of theirown lives. One plunges into the surf and rescues a swimmer from drowning; another dashes into a burning house and carries a stranger to safety; others snatch a child fromthe wheels of death; many give their blood so that others may live. Count

20、less unnamed and unrecorded men have given their lives for their fellowmen, not only on the battlefront but on the home- front as well.9 人類固有的優(yōu)點還體現(xiàn)在不計其數(shù)的英雄主義行為、充滿無私和犧牲精神的舉動上，每天我們都會讀到人們冒著生命危險挽救他人生命的事跡：有人躍入水中拯救溺水的泳者； 有人沖進(jìn)火場將陌生人帶出險境；有人從死亡的車輪下救出孩子；許多人獻(xiàn)出鮮血使他人生命得以延續(xù)。數(shù)不勝數(shù)的不知姓名、不被記載的人們，不僅在戰(zhàn)場上，而且還在戰(zhàn)爭的大后方，為了他

21、們的同胞獻(xiàn)出了生命。10Human nature does not and cannot change but unfolds its inherent pattern. Man has a natureand its laws can be known. We can only endeavor to understand man as he is.10 人性不會也不能改變，它只展現(xiàn)它固有的模式。它有天性而且這種天性的規(guī)律是可知的。我們只能盡力去了解人類的真實面貌。Unit EightIts almost a common sense that wearing a seat belt can

22、 keep passengers from being injured or being killed in a car accident. But recent research done by John Adams shows more complicated statistics. More car accidents are caused by the reckless drivers who wear seat belts.THE HIDDEN DANGER OF SEAT BELTSDavid Bjerklie安全帶可以避免乘客在車禍中受傷或死亡，這幾乎是常識。但是，約翰亞當(dāng)斯最近

23、所做的研究得出了更加復(fù)雜的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)。當(dāng)司機(jī)系著安全帶時，他們開車無所顧忌，更多車禍因此而發(fā)生。座椅安全帶的隱患大衛(wèi)布杰克里1 Seat belts still decrease our risk of dying in an accident, but the statistics are not all black and white. In fact, according to one researcher, seat belts may actually cause people to drive more recklessly.1 座椅安全帶固然能降低我們在車禍中死亡的危險，但從統(tǒng)計數(shù)

24、據(jù)看，情況并不是那么絕對。事實上，據(jù)一位研究者說，安全帶可能會使人們在駕車時更加肆無忌憚。2 If theres one thing we know about our risky world, its that seat belts save lives. And they do, of course. But reality, as usual, is messier and more complicated than that. John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University Colleg

25、e London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road acci

26、dent deaths.2 對于這個有危險的世界，如果有一件事我們還算了解，那就是座椅安全帶可以救命。當(dāng)然，它確實可以救命。但實際情況通常要更混亂、更復(fù)雜。倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院的風(fēng)險專家、地理學(xué)榮譽(yù)教授約翰亞當(dāng)斯早就質(zhì)疑安全帶能保證駕車安全的信條。亞當(dāng)斯最早開始查看統(tǒng)計數(shù)字是早在 25 年前的事了。他的發(fā)現(xiàn)與人們的普遍看法恰恰相反在 18 個強(qiáng)制使用安全帶的國家，要么交通事故死亡率根本沒有變化，要么實際上反而導(dǎo)致了死亡率的凈增長。3 How can that be? Adams interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compens

27、ation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive; as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Lets make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewa

28、rds of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a mend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe

29、old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license.3 怎么會這樣?亞當(dāng)斯用風(fēng)險補(bǔ)償?shù)母拍顏斫忉屵@些數(shù)據(jù)資料，這個概念就是：人們往往會根據(jù)他們意識到的風(fēng)險程度的改變來相應(yīng)地調(diào)整自己的行為。亞當(dāng)斯解釋說，假設(shè)一位司機(jī)駕車途中要過一個窄彎道，這名司機(jī)是個男青年，那么他會受到自己對以下兩方面認(rèn)知的影響：駕車的風(fēng)險和駕車的回報。他所考慮的東西可能包括：能夠準(zhǔn)時上班或準(zhǔn)時趕赴朋

30、友的飯局、讓同伴對他的駕車技術(shù)留下深刻印象、使自己作為熟練駕車手的形象更加鞏固。他還可能考慮到自身的安全問題、長命百歲的愿望、對車上年幼乘客的責(zé)任感、撞毀自己的漂亮新車或駕駛證被沒收的代價。Nor will these possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucia

31、lly, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.這些可能的擔(dān)心也不是孤立存在的。他還要考慮到天氣和路況、交通擁擠的程度和所駕車子

32、的性能。但亞當(dāng)斯說，關(guān)鍵的是這個司機(jī)還將根據(jù)他對風(fēng)險變化的判斷來調(diào)整自己的行為。如果他系上了安全帶，而他的車子帶有前、側(cè)氣囊和防滑剎車系統(tǒng)，他駕起車來可能會更大膽。4 The point, stresses Adams, is that drivers who feel safe may actually increase the risk that they pose to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own passengers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up,

33、 only 68% of their rear-seat passengers do). And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car. Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber or motorcyclist. Add some safety equipment to the equation- a net, rope or helmet respectively- and the person may try maneu

34、vers that he or she would otherwise consider foolish. In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities. For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the beha

35、vior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the steering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives. Perverse, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior.4 亞當(dāng)斯強(qiáng)調(diào)說，問題就在于自我感覺安全的司機(jī)們實際上對其他司機(jī)、騎自行車者、行人和自己車上的乘客來說是更大的危險(平均 80的

36、司機(jī)系安全帶，而同車后座的乘客只有 68系安全帶)。風(fēng)險補(bǔ)償絕不僅限于駕車行為。亞當(dāng)斯說，類似的還有表演高空秋千的藝人、攀巖者或摩托車手。如果在他們的安全等式上增添某種安全裝置比如說分別給他們一張救生網(wǎng)、一根保險繩或一個頭盔這個人可能就會試著做些平時認(rèn)為很愚蠢的技巧性表演。因此，安全帶并非簡單、直截了當(dāng)?shù)販p少死亡人數(shù)，而是對風(fēng)險和死亡事故進(jìn)行了更加復(fù)雜的再分配。為了說明其中的道理，亞當(dāng)斯提出人們可以想象一下，如果在方向盤中間安一個尖頭的木樁，司機(jī)開車時會受到怎樣的影響?或者在保險杠上裝滿炸藥呢?這簡直是喪心病狂，是的，不過這確實提供了一個生動的例子，來說明人們?nèi)绾胃鶕?jù)對風(fēng)險的判斷來調(diào)整行為。5

37、 In everyday life, risk is a moving target, not a set number as statistics might suggest.In addition to external factors, each individual has his or her own internal comfort level with risk- taking. Some are daring while others are cautious by nature. And still others are fatalists who may believe t

38、hat a higher power devises mortality schedules that fix a predetermined time when our number is up. Consequently, any single measurement assigned to the risk of driving a car is bound to be only the roughest sort of benchmark.5 日常生活中，風(fēng)險是不斷移動的靶子，而并不像統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)那樣是個固定數(shù)字。除了外部因素外，每個人對于冒險都有自己內(nèi)在的安全尺度。有些人天生大膽而有些人

39、天生謹(jǐn)慎， 還有些人是宿命論者，他們會認(rèn)為，有一種更強(qiáng)大的力量設(shè)計了死亡時間表，預(yù)先確定了我們的死期。因此，對駕車風(fēng)險做任何單一的測算所得到的肯定只是最粗略的基準(zhǔn)數(shù)據(jù)。Adams cites, as an example the statistical fact that a young man is 100 times more likely to be involved in a severe crash than is a middle-aged woman. Similarly, someone driving at 3:00 a.m. Sunday is more than 100

40、times more likely to die than someone driving at 10:00 a.m. Sunday. Someone with a personality disorder is 10 times more likely to die. And lets say hes also drunk. Tally up All these factors and consider them independently says Adams, and you could arrive at. a statistical prediction that a disturb

41、ed, drunken young man driving in the middle of the night is2.7 million times more likely to be involved in a serious accident than would a sober, middle- aged woman driving to church seven hours later.亞當(dāng)斯引用了這樣的統(tǒng)計事實作例子：青年男子發(fā)生嚴(yán)重撞車事故的概率比中年婦女高100 倍。同樣，在星期天凌晨 3 點鐘駕車的人比同一天上午 10 點鐘駕車的人死亡風(fēng)險高出100 多倍，有人格障礙的人比

42、一般人死亡風(fēng)險高 10 倍。亞當(dāng)斯說，假如這個人還喝醉了， 匯總所有這些因素并分別加以考慮，就會得到一個具有統(tǒng)計性的預(yù)測：一位心理失常又喝醉酒的青年男子在午夜駕車，7 個小時后一位頭腦清醒的中年婦女駕車去教堂，前者發(fā)生嚴(yán)重交通事故的概率比后者高 270 萬倍。6 The bottom line is that risk doesnt exist in a vacuum and that there are a host of factors thatcome into play, including the rewards of risk, whether they are financial

43、, physical or emotional. It is this very human context which risk exists. That is key, says Adams, who titled one of his recent blogs: What Kills You Matters- Not Numbers. Our reaction to risk very much depends on the degree to which it is voluntary (scuba diving), unavoidable (public transit) or im

44、posed (air quality), the degree to which we feel we are in control (driving) or at the mercy of others (plane travel), and the degree to which the source of possible danger is benign (doctors orders), indifferent (nature) or malign, (murder and terrorism). We make dozens of risk calculations daily,

45、but you can book odds- that most of them are so automatic or visceral- that we barely notice them.6 問題的要點就在于風(fēng)險并不是孤立存在的，它會受到許多因素的影響，包括承擔(dān)風(fēng)險所帶來的種種回報無論是財產(chǎn)方面的、身體方面的，還是情感方面的。這正是風(fēng)險賴以存在的真實的人類社會。亞當(dāng)斯說，這才是問題的關(guān)鍵，正如他把近期的一篇博客題目定為關(guān)鍵的是置人于死地的東西，而不是數(shù)字。我們對風(fēng)險的反應(yīng)多半取決于它在多大程度上是自發(fā)的行為(如戴水肺潛水)、是不可避免的(如公共交通)、還是強(qiáng)加給我們的(如空氣質(zhì)量)；取

46、決于我們認(rèn)為在多大程度上是我們能控制的(如駕駛)或是由別人控制的(如乘飛機(jī))； 還取決于這種潛在危險在多大程度上是出于好意(如醫(yī)生的指令)、無意的(如自然因素)或惡 意的(如謀殺和恐怖活動)。我們每天要做幾十遍風(fēng)險計算，但是可以確信的是，多數(shù)時候人們對風(fēng)險的計算自然而然或者說是出自本能，以至于我們幾乎注意不到我們在做計算。Unit NineTHE HOUSING CRISIS GOES SUBURBAN住房危機(jī)走向郊區(qū) 邁克爾格倫沃爾德在過去的五年里，弗吉尼亞州費爾法克斯縣的住房價格增長速度是家庭收入增長速度的 12 倍今天，該縣中等家庭不得不將其收入的 54用于購買位于該縣的普通住房；在20

47、00 年，這個數(shù)字是 26。形勢如此嚴(yán)峻，以至于費爾法克斯縣最近開始對年收入90，000 美元的家庭提供住房補(bǔ)貼；很快，這個數(shù)字可能提高到 110，000 美元。1 Seventy years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that the Depression had left one- third of the American people ill-housed, ill-clothed and ill-nourished,2 Americans are well- clothed and increasingly over

48、 nourished. But the scarcity of affordable housing is a deepening national crisis, and not just for inner-city families on welfare. The problem has climbed the income ladder and moved to the suburbs, where service workers cram their families into overcrowded apartments, college graduates have to cra

49、sh with their parents, and firefighters, police officers and teachers cant afford to live in the communities they serve.1 富蘭克林羅斯?？偨y(tǒng)曾經(jīng)說經(jīng)濟(jì)大蕭條造成 13 的美國人住房簡陋、衣衫襤褸、營養(yǎng)不良，然而 70 年后的今天，美國人卻是穿著考究、營養(yǎng)日益過剩。但是，廉價房稀缺是一場日益加深的民族危機(jī)，而不僅僅是依靠福利為生的城市家庭的危機(jī)。這個問題已經(jīng)波及中產(chǎn)階級，并向郊區(qū)蔓延，在那里服務(wù)工作者及其家屬擠在過于狹小的公寓里，大學(xué)畢業(yè)生不得不借宿在父母家，而消防隊員、警察

50、和教師在他們所服務(wù)的社區(qū)也買不起房。2 Home ownership is near an all-time high, but the gap is growing between the Owns and the Own-Nots as well as the Owns and the Own-80-Miles-From-Work. One-third of Americans now spend at least 30% of their income on housing, the federal definition of an unaffordable burden, and ha

51、lf the working poor spend at least 50% of their income on rent, a critical burden. The real estate boom of the past decade has produced windfalls for Americans who owned before it began, but affordable housing is now a serious problem for more low- and moderate- income Americans than taxes, Social S

52、ecurity4 or gas prices.2 住房擁有率接近歷史最高位，但有房戶和無房戶之間的差距越來越大，有房戶和房子離工作單位 80 英里遠(yuǎn)的有房戶之間的差距也越來越大。現(xiàn)在，13 的美國人花費至少 30 的收入用于住房，聯(lián)邦政府將這種情況定義為“無力支付”的負(fù)擔(dān)，而有一半的窮打工仔花費至少 50的收入用于租房，這種情況被稱為“極其嚴(yán)重”的負(fù)擔(dān)。在過去 10 年里， 房地產(chǎn)迅猛發(fā)展，這使得在此之前就已經(jīng)購置房產(chǎn)的美國人大賺特賺了一把，但現(xiàn)在廉價房對中、低收入的美國人來說，是一個比稅收、社會保險、汽油價格更嚴(yán)重的問題。3 America used to care a lot about

53、affordable housing. Roosevelt signed housing legislation in 1934 and 1937, providing mortgages, government apartments and construction jobs for workers down on their luck. In 1949, Congress .set an official goaljjf a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, and in 197

54、4, President Richard M. Nixon began offering subsidized rent vouchers to millions of low-income tenants in private housing. For half a century, most housing debates in Washington revolved around how much to expand federal assistance.3 美國曾經(jīng)非常關(guān)注廉價房問題。1934 年和 1937 年，羅斯福簽署了住房立法，提供抵押貸款、政府公寓，并為那些窮困潦倒的工人提供

55、建筑工作。1949 年，國會樹立了官方目標(biāo)“讓每一個美國家庭都能擁有一個體面的家和宜居環(huán)境，”而到了 1974 年，尼克松總統(tǒng)開始對數(shù)以百萬計的低收入租戶在私有住房方面提供租金補(bǔ)貼憑單。半個世紀(jì)以來，在華盛頓發(fā)生的大多數(shù)住房方面的辯論都圍繞著一個主題：即應(yīng)該在多大程度上擴(kuò)大聯(lián)邦政府的資助。4 But for the past two decades, the only new federal housing initiative has been HOPE VI5, a Clinton administration program that has demolished 80,000 unit

56、s of the worst public housing and built mixed-income developments in their place. The program has eliminated most of the high-rise hellholes that gave public housing a bad name and has revived some urban neighborhoods. But it has razed more subsidized apartments than it has replaced.4 但在過去 20 年中，唯一的

57、聯(lián)邦住房新提案就是 HOPE VI，也就是克林頓政府拆毀 80,000單位的最差公共住房，重建混合收入寓所來取而代之。該計劃已經(jīng)拆除了大部分高度危險的房子，它們曾使公共住房聲名狼藉，并已重建了一些城市的社區(qū)。但是它更多的是把享有補(bǔ)貼的公寓房夷為平地而不是取而代之。5 Overall, the number of households receiving federal aid has flatlined since the early 1990s, despite an expanding population and a ballooning budget. Congress has rej

58、ected most of President Bushs proposed cuts, but there has been virtually no discussion of increases; affordable-housing advocates spend most of their time fighting to preserve the status quo.5 總的來說，自 90 年代初以來，接受聯(lián)邦援助的家庭數(shù)已經(jīng)降到最低，盡管人口不斷增加、預(yù)算不斷膨脹。美國國會已經(jīng)拒絕了美國總統(tǒng)布什提出的大部分的削減計劃，但幾乎沒有 討論過增加計劃；廉價房的倡導(dǎo)者花費的大部分時間都被用于努力爭取保持現(xiàn)狀。6 And its a tough status quo. Today, for every one of the 4.5 million low-income families that receive federal housing assistance, there are three eligible families without it. Fairfax County has 12,000 families on a wa