Before, whenever we had wealth,
we started discussing poverty. Why not now? Why is the current politics of
wealth and poverty seemingly about wealth alone? Eight years ago, when Bill
Clinton first ran for president, the Dow Jones average was under 3,500, yearly
federal budget deficits were projected at hundreds of billions of dollars
forever and beyond, and no one talked about the "permanent boom" or the "new
economy." Yet in that more {{U}}straitened{{/U}} time, Clinton made much of the
importance of "not leaving a single person behind." It is possible that similar
"compassionate" rhetoric might yet play a role in the general
election. But it is striking how much less talk there is about
the poor than there was eight years ago, when the country was economically
uncertain, or in previous eras, when the country felt {{U}}flush{{/U}}. Even last
summer, when Clinton spent several days on a remarkable, Bobby Kennedy-like
pilgrimage through impoverished areas from Indian reservations in South Dakota
to ghetto neighborhoods in East St. Louis, the administration decided to refer
to the effort not as a poverty tour but as a "new market initiative."
What is happening is partly a logical, policy-driven reaction. Poverty
really is lower than it has been in decades, especially for minority groups. The
most attractive solution to it — a growing economy — is being applied. The
people who have been totally left out of this boom often have medical, mental or
other problems for which no one has an immediate solution. "The economy has
{{U}}sucked in{{/U}} anyone who has any preparation, any ability to cope with modem
life," says Franklin D. Raines, the former director of the Office of Management
and Budget who is now head of Fannie Mae. When he and other people who
specialize in the issue talk about solutions, they talk analytically and on a
long-term basis: education, development of work skills, shifts in the labor
market, adjustments in welfare reform. But I think there is
another force that has made this a rich era with barely visible poor people. It
is the unusual social and imaginative separation between prosperous America and
those still left, out... It's simple invisibility, because of increasing
geographic, occupational, and social barriers that block one group from the
other's view.
单选题
In this passage, the word "straitened" underlined in Paragraph 1 means ______.
单选题
In this passage, the word "flush" underlined in Paragraph 2 means ______.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】[分析] 词义题型
见第二段第一句：But it is striking how much less talk there is about the poor than there was eight years ago, when the country was economically uncertain, or in previous eras, when the country felt flush. 此句是拿现在与八年前及再早些的年代相比：八年前国家的经济变幻莫测(when the country was economically uncertain, )与再早些的年代国家经济flush相对，由此推断出flush应与uncertain意义相对，因此答案为C。
单选题
The author states that one important reason that we do not talk much about poverty is that ______.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[分析] 细节题型
见第三段第二句：Poverty really is lower than it has been in decades, especially for minority groups. (贫困率现在确实比几十年前低了，尤其是对少数民族裔而言)，因此答案为B。
单选题
The phrase "suck in" underlined in Paragraph 3 means ______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[分析] 词义题型
"The economy has sucked in anyone who has any preparation, any ability to cope with modem life," says Franklin D. Raines, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget who is now head of Fannie Mae. (前管理和预算办公室主任、现任的头头Franklin D. Raines说：“这种经济接受所有有所准备、有能力应对现代生活的人。”)因此选项D“欺骗，接受”是答案。
单选题
In the last paragraph, the author mentions that the poor people ______.