Question

急求！！！请翻译一下这篇英文文章，不要用翻译器翻的~

On November 22, 1994, Robert Reich, then U.S. Secretary of Labor, issued a challenge to Washington's public policy "think tanks" to identify business subsidies he characterized as "federal aid to dependent corporations."(1) Along with the many social welfare programs being targeted for reduction or termination by the incoming Republican-controlled 104th Congress, Reich believed that "corporate welfare" subsidies would provide considerable fuel for deficit reduction. Reich challenged congressional Republicans to terminate inappropriate federal government involvement in the workings of the U.S economy.Secretary Reich's call to action was answered the following year with corporate welfare "white papers" issued by the libertarian Cato Institute, the centrist Progressive Policy Institute, and the liberal Center for Responsive Law and Essential Information. The reports' findings and recommendations were stunning. The Cato Institute identified 125 federal programs that subsidize business to the tune of $85 billion annually. The Progressive Policy Institute found 121 spending and tax subsidies benefiting specific industries that, if eliminated or reformed, would save $265.2 million over five years. Not to be outdone, the Center for Responsive Law and Essential Information's report uncovered 153 federal business welfare programs totaling $167.2 billion in taxpayer subsidies for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995.How did corporate welfare endure under a Republican congress and a Democrat president? According to Cato Institute analysts Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, it came out of the budget debate relatively unscathed. Of the $19.5 billion budgeted for the 35 least defensible programs identified by the Cato Institute, Congress cut only $2.8 billion (or 15 percent) for FY96. Moore and Stansel found that many programs were reduced nominally or not at all. Meanwhile, although President Clinton called Secretary Reich's proposal an "attractive idea," he clearly articulated that he did not endorse cutbacks in benefits to business. In fact, Moore and Stansel found that the Clinton administration actually proposed increased spending in the 35 least defensible programs. And the White House vetoed Republican budget bills because Republican reductions in corporate subsidies were deemed too large.Defining Corporate WelfareThe condemnation of corporate welfare across the political spectrum may lead one to believe--incorrectly--that the definition of this concept is universally understood. But as we will see, the ideology of each public policy think tank or public interest group colors the definition of what constitutes "corporate welfare."

Answer 1

1994年11月22日，罗伯特帝国，美国劳工部长，发出挑战，华盛顿的公共政策的“智囊团”确定企业补贴他定性为“联邦援助依赖企业。”（1）随着许多社会福利计划有针对性的减少或终止由共和党控制的国会传入第一百零四认为，帝国“公司福利补贴”将提供相当大的燃料，减少赤字。帝国挑战国会共和党人终止不适当的联邦政府参与运作的美国经济帝国的行动呼吁。秘书回答下一年的福利企业“白皮书”颁发的卡托研究所，中间派的进步政策研究所，与中心自由反应法和基本信息。该报告的调查结果和建议是惊人的。卡托研究所确定125联邦计划，资助企业高达每年85000000000美元。美国进步政策研究所发现121支出和税收补贴惠及特定行业，如果取消或改革，将节省265200000美元超过五年。不甘示弱，响应中心法律和必要的信息的报告发现了153个联邦制的福利项目总计167200000000美元的纳税人补贴的财政年度（1995年度）。如何做企业福利忍受在共和党国会，民主党总统？根据卡托研究所分析师史蒂芬穆尔和迪安stansel，它出来的预算辩论中毫发无损。19500000000美元的预算至少有35个防御计划所确定的卡托研究所，国会削减2800000000美元（或百分之15）为fy96。穆尔和stansel发现许多程序减少了名义上的或根本没有。同时，虽然克林顿总统称部长里奇的建议“有吸引力的想法，”他明确表示他不同意削减福利企业。事实上，穆尔和stansel发现克林顿政府实际上提出了增加开支在35至少防御计划。和白宫否决了共和党的预算法案，因为共和党削减公司补贴被认为太大。定义企业welfarethe谴责福利企业在政治光谱可能导致人们相信——正确——的定义，这一概念是普遍的理解。但是，正如我们将看到，意识形态的每个公共政策智囊团或公共利益集团的颜色定义什么构成“公司的福利。”