진정한 독해는 최대한 여러 상황을 반복적으로 접함으로써 그런 상황들에 대한 추측의 정확성을 높이는 것입니다. 그러려면 일단 최대한 많은 상황을 접해야 합니다. 많은 상황을 접하려면 일단 많이 읽어야 합니다. 아래 내용을 100% 이해하려고 노력하지 마십시오. 있는 것만 이해하시고 모르는 것은 그냥 넘어가셔도 됩니다. 다음에 그런 상황이 나옵니다. 그렇게 여러 유사한 상황을 만나면 저절로 이해가 됩니다. 모르는 단어가 나와도 사전 찾지 마시고 추측하시기 바랍니다. 추측도 훈련이 필요합니다. 평소에 추측을 전혀 하지 않던 사람이 갑자기 정확한 추측을 하게 수는 없습니다. 그저 사설에서 가지만 얻어 가겠다는 결심을 해보십시오. 아주 현명한 생각입니다. 그렇게 하면 마음의 여유가 생겨 시야가 훨씬 넓어지며 유연한 추측이 가능해집니다. 독해할 욕심을 내면 시야가 좁아져 제대로 추측할 수가 없으며 또한 공부를 오래 수도 없습니다. 금방 지쳐버립니다. 그러면 많이 읽을 수가 없고, 당근 많은 상황을 접해볼 수가 없는 악순환이 시작됩니다. 마음의 여유! 넓은 시야! 유연한 추측! 고수들이 반드시 가지고 있는 것들입니다 


November 7, 2011

Staring Into the Budget’s Abyss

Republicans, looking for leverage to slash federal spending, created the phony debit-ceiling crisis that led to creation of the Congressional deficit-cutting “supercommittee.” But with the committee close to a deadlock — largely because Republicans will not agree to higher taxes on the rich — and the deadline for an agreement approaching, some Republicans are now talking about undoing the process.

We are no fans of the supercommittee. It is undemocratic, and the deep, automatic cuts the law would impose if the committee fails to reach agreement are gimmicky and potentially dangerous. But walking away at this point would be an embarrassment for Congress and a far-reaching blow to Washington’s financial credibility.

The committee of 12, divided between the two parties, was required by the Budget Control Act to come up with a plan to shrink the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade through any combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. If the members fail to agree, the law would automatically “sequester” $1.2 trillion in spending cuts — heavily affecting defense programs.

Democrats have proposed a $4 trillion mix of cuts and tax increases, carving too deeply from domestic programs. But Republicans have rejected any tax increases, and Democrats are rightly refusing to agree to any package without revenues.

If the committee fails, Representative K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Times, “most of us will move heaven and earth to find an alternative that prevents a sequester from happening.” Several Republicans are talking about finding cuts elsewhere in the budget, and that surely means social-insurance programs. Democrats, including President Obama, would probably block any law that undoes the budget act, but even talking about doing so reduces the pressure on the panel to reach agreement.

The committee should be working overtime to avoid a sequester, which would cut virtually every discretionary program at the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department by 10 percent in 2013. (Cuts in the following nine years would be made by Congress but would still be 10 percent.) Medicare providers would be cut by 2 percent, and there would be major reductions in other domestic programs, including several necessary for health reform.

But as bad as the sequester would be, it would spare most social-insurance programs, making it better than the proposals by supercommittee Republicans to cut more than $2 trillion without raising any revenues. Those would largely spare the Pentagon but make deep cuts in programs that benefit the needy.

Simply dismissing the committee and undoing the sequester would be such a vast admission of Congressional failure that it could push down the nation’s credit rating, lead to chaos in financial markets and severely cripple hopes for an economic recovery. Republicans created the policies that forced up the deficit and then refused to compromise with President Obama. They cannot simply walk away now. Panel members have only a few days to come up with a plan that balances new revenues with spending cuts. That is the only way to wrestle down the deficit without doing huge damage to the economy and the country.


설정

트랙백

댓글