语篇格律在实现英语社论目的中的作用

赵 民

(上海交通大学,上海,200240)

引 言

“张嘴皆有目的”(王振华2002),“发话即是判断”(To breathe is to judge)(Sarangi 2003,引自王振华2008:51)。根据王振华(2008),语篇是实现目的过程的系统,如果没有目的,语篇则不是完整的系统。语篇的社会目的和语篇的三个要件(语篇生产者、语篇自身和语篇消费者)共同构成语篇系统。因此,研究语篇目的成为研究语篇语义的重要内容。

语篇格律是语类理论的下位理论,是研究语篇目的实现的有效工具。语篇格律的研究在系统功能语言学领域里主要出自Martin和Rose(2003/2007)和王振华(2008;2009)等学者之手。其中,Martin和Rose(2003/2007)提出的语篇语义分析模式(评价、概念、联结、识别和语篇格律)中,语篇格律是实现语篇语义的一个维度。王振华(2009)提出的一个范式(系统科学)、两个脉络(文脉和义脉)、三种功能(语篇功能、概念功能和人际功能)、四种语义(织体语义、格律语义、词汇语义和韵律语义)和五个视角(联结、格律、识别、概念和评价)的语篇语义分析模式中,语篇格律研究贯穿于整个语篇语义研究。基于他们的理论,本文从语篇格律框架入手,研究其对实现语篇目的的作用。

1.语篇格律

语言学界的格律研究主要包括对“话段”(utterance)和语篇的研究,称为语篇格律或者篇章格律研究(王振华2002:179)。把格律研究推衍至语篇层面的学者是系统功能语言学派的代表人J. R. Martin(Martin和Rose2003/2007)。Martin和Rose(2003/2007:175)指出,格律关注的是信息的流动,语篇格律主要指语篇信息分布的规律。格律就是把信息打包以便于人们更好地理解语篇。Martin和Rose把Pike和Halliday等人关于语言学研究中的“波浪”这一概念推衍至语篇层面(王振华2007)。如果说语篇的意义如同波韵一般渗透于语篇,那么语篇格律就如同波韵周围的不同波峰之间形成的节奏,不同的波峰之间形成一个信息相,语篇最终便具有了不同的层次和结构。

本文主要采用Martin和Rose(2007)关于语篇的“大波浪”(bigger waves)和“浪潮”(tidal waves)的观点,着重分析两家报纸社论在小句以上语言单位的信息流动和分布。大波浪由高级语篇相,即段落层的两个波峰“超主位”(hyperTheme)和“超新信息”(hyperNew)组成。超主位指一个段落的主题句,超新信息是该段落每个句子的新信息“蒸馏”(distillling)到一个句子以后浓缩形成的新信息。超主位告诉人们语篇的去向,超新信息告诉我们语篇到了何处。浪潮是高于段落层的更高级语篇相,由“宏观主位”(MacroTheme)和“宏观新信息”(MacroNew)组成。宏观主位不止一个,可以是语篇的一个段落,或语篇的题目,也可以是一本书的目录等。宏观主位预测超主位,宏观信息蒸馏超新信息。

2. 语料

我们从互联网上选取美国《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》对奥巴马医疗改革的系列英语社论为语料,各10篇。主要因为两家报纸在美国影响巨大,且都享有很大的评论自由，而且,两报对奥巴马的医疗改革都作了系列社论评论,为更好地对比分析同属社论语类的不同语篇的语篇格律提供了可能性。另外,两报社论报道的时间接近,社论主题也基本一致。

为了方便分析,我们把《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》的社论分别编码为:N1,N2…N10;和L1,L2…L10。社论标题如附录1所示。从篇幅来看,《纽约时报》关于奥巴马医疗改革的系列社论报道比《洛杉矶时报》的社论报道要长。此外,《洛杉矶时报》的社论标题后面都有一段文字,来阐述标题和表明该社论的观点。如L1、L2、L3和L4的标题和阐述文字:

L1: The “Cadillac” compromise

Yes, unions negotiated a better deal for labor. But the goal of controlling costs was preserved.

L2: Reform, meet Anthem Blue Cross

The insurer’s proposed rate hikes are the best argument for passing healthcare reform now.

L3: Obama’s summit

At Thursday’s meeting on health reform, the focus should be on reining in rapidly rising costs.

L4: The way forward

What did Obama’s summit prove? That Democrats are on the right track, and need to get a bill passed.

每个标题下面的文字是在语篇展开前,向受众初步表明该社论的观点和立场。本文没有将这些句子列为社论的副标题,而是将其归为语篇内容。同时,这些句子和社论的结尾遥相呼应,是社论观点的先声传达。这样,语篇受众很容易明白标题的含义和社论评论的走向和落脚点。

《纽约时报》的社论篇幅较长,不便提供其社论原文,故只提供了下文所分析的《洛杉矶时报》的L1和L7两篇社论原文,供读者参考(见附录2)。

3. 格律分析和讨论

根据Martin(1992/2006:505),语类是以目的为取向的、分阶段实现的社会过程。一般说来,社论作为新闻语类的次语类,其主要目的是引导舆论,指导受众,或向受众解释新闻事件。本文认为,具体的社论语篇目的各有侧重,对所评论的新闻事件各持不同的态度和立场,或赞同或反对或提议等,而且表明观点或立场的方式和程度也不同。比如,有明确赞同或激烈反对,亦有间接支持或反对。因此,社论还可以根据其目的实现方式或观点和立场的不同,产生社论的次语类。为了明确语篇格律在实现社论语篇目的过程中的角色,本文把选取的社论语篇目的逐一作了分析,总结如表1所示,以便我们更好地研究语篇格律和语篇目的之间的关系。需要说明的是,表1中所列的目的分析中包含的观点都是针对奥巴马医疗改革这个主题的,不具体关涉每个社论语篇的具体主题。

表1 《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》的社论目的分析

(续表)

本文根据上文提及的Martin和Rose(2003/2007)关于超主位和超新信息、宏观主位和宏观新信息的观点,对所选《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》社论进行了格律分析。为了更好地明示语篇格律在实现语篇目的过程中的作用,本文把目的相同的两报社论分组进行分析和讨论。具体说来,是根据目的把所选社论分为以下三组:(1)明确支持+提议,如N6和L5;(2)支持/赞同+提议,如N5和L1;(3)间接支持或间接赞同,如N9和L7。因篇幅所限,我们只讨论第二组和第三组社论的语篇格律和语篇目的之间的关系,且只讨论宏观主位和宏观新信息这一层面的格律特点。

第二组社论:支持/赞同+提议。以N5和L1语篇为例。在共有17段的题为CadillacPlans的N5语篇中出现了9个宏观主位和2个宏观新信息。这些宏观主位主要通过社论的标题、某些段落和段落的小标题实现。这9个宏观主位分别出现在:标题、第1段、第2段、第4段、第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段。宏观新信息出现在:第16段和第17段。其中,这些段落的小标题出现在第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段这5个宏观主位的位置。同时,第4段的宏观主位还兼具超新信息的角色,第16段和第17段的宏观新信息还兼具超新信息的角色。为了更好地说明段落小标题的位置和作用,我们选取了N5的部分段落进行例析:

(第5段) HOW IT WORKS Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. ...

(第9段) WHY IT’S GOOD A vast majority of economists agree that the tax would be a valuable cost-control feature. ...

(第11段) POTENTIAL HARM There is some risk—nobody knows how large—that higher deductibles and co-payments would discourage some people, especially the chronically ill, from seeking medical care that they need. ...

(第12段) WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP? Eminent economists—and the official scorers at the Joint Committee on Taxation—believe that as employers spend less on health benefits they will increase wages to continue to attract high-quality workers. ...

(第15段) MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING Many of the policies described as Cadillac plans are not costly because they provide lavish benefits but rather because they cover workers who are older and sicker than most, or who work in high-cost areas or in high-risk industries.

这些段落中的黑体大写小标题如HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD等起到了社论在该论证阶段的宏观主位的作用。这些小标题使得原本看起来冗长的社论论证层次清晰,使社论语篇富有合理的节奏,便于受众理解社论的意图,从而更好地实现社论的目的。

此外,宏观主位和宏观新信息等概念是相对而言的。具体来说,语篇向内而言,不同阶段都可能会有属于该阶段的宏观主位和宏观新信息,如上述段落小标题HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD,POTENTIAL HARM,WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP和MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING等。语篇向外而言也有可能会出现宏观主位,如语篇的标题和《洛杉矶时报》的标题后续文字等,如L5和L6所示:

L5: Reconciliation: the endgame

Reform is desperately needed, and if that means Democrats must push through a bill, that’s OK.

L6: Cost control’s the key

Republicans who say the House and Senate bills won’t limit spending on care are wrong.

另外,N5的格律还具备一个特点,即一个语篇相可以同时兼任两个角色。如N5的宏观主位(第4段),同时兼具超新信息的角色,如下述段落所示:

(第1段) The agreement between the White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions over taxing high-priced health insurance policies is a reasonable solution to an issue that was threatening to derail health care reform. The agreement treats unionized workers far more favorably than nonunion workers, the price for the support of important Democratic constituencies. But it would preserve the tax’s crucial role in slowing the rise in health care costs for decades to come.

(第2段) When the Senate voted for the tax on high-priced employer-sponsored health insurance policies—“Cadillac plans”—labor leaders and many House Democrats complained that the tax would penalize middle-class people who had plans that were hardly lavish. They much preferred the House approach: a so-called millionaire’s tax, a surcharge on earnings above1 million a year for couples.

(第3段) A millionaire’s tax may not survive the negotiations on a final bill, but Congress has to find money to pay for health insurance for millions of Americans. The agreement makes that more difficult because it is expected to reduce the money generated by the excise tax substantially from the original Senate bill. Rich Americans and the industries involved in health care should pick up much of the added burden.

(第4段) The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending.

(第5段) HOW IT WORKS Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer’s often-substantial contribution. That’s why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise.

(第9段) WHY IT’S GOOD A vast majority of economists agree that the tax would be a valuable cost-control feature. In our largely fee-for-service system, doctors have an economic incentive to provide more services. With insurance covering most of the bill, neither patients nor doctors worry much about costs. Requiring workers to pay more out of pocket would force them and their doctors to think a lot more carefully about whether an expensive test or treatment is really necessary.

第4段(粗体部分)是第1段至第4段这一个语篇相的超新信息,又是第4段以后的语篇相的宏观主位,因为第4段以后的论证都是围绕“the proposed excise tax on high-cost plans”这个主题展开讨论的。此外,N5的第16段和第17段也同时担任宏观新信息和超新信息两个角色。这表明,宏观主位和宏观新信息是相对而言,并非只是语篇向外更高级的语篇相才会出现宏观主位和宏观新信息。一个语篇相兼任两个角色,对社论N5来说,使其语篇各阶段的论证环环相扣、长而不乱。

整体来看,N5内部在第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段出现的5个宏观主位,即段落小标题HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD,POTENTIAL HARM,WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP和MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING,使语篇富有层次性,散而不乱,从多方面论证“the proposed excise tax on high-cost plans”这个主题,并且论证丰富翔实,极具广度。第16段和第17段的超新信息/宏观新信息,积累了社论多方面论证的新信息后,向受众展示了社论结尾所表明的立场和观点,并进一步深化主题。这一点,从第1段的宏观主位和第16段的超新信息/宏观新信息,以及第4段的宏观主位和第17段的宏观新信息/超新信息可以看出,如下述段落所示:

(第1段) The agreement between the White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions over taxing high-priced health insurance policies is a reasonable solution to an issue that was threatening to derail health care reform. The agreement treats unionized workers far more favorably than nonunion workers, the price for the support of important Democratic constituencies. But it would preserve the tax’s crucial role in slowing the rise in health care costs for decades to come.

(第4段) The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending.

(第16段) The agreement would raise the thresholds for plans covering workers who are disproportionately old or female or employed in a wide range of high-risk jobs. There would be a transition period for states where medical costs are high. These look like reasonable exceptions to ensure that the tax falls on truly generous plans.

(第17段) A vast majority of workers would not be affected by the proposed excise tax. Those that are hit should remember that the bulk of their health benefits would remain exempt from taxes—an enormous subsidy from the taxpayer. For the sake of reining in costs and helping to pay for covering the uninsured, taxing high-priced plans is the right thing to do.

粗体部分是讨论的主题,从中我们可以看出,第16段是对第1段的深化,第17段是对第4段的深化,彼此遥相呼应,使社论既富有节奏,又深化了主题并且表明了立场和观点。

一言以蔽之, N5通过使用段落小标题,为社论从多方面,多角度论证提供了空间,同时亦使得其长达17段的社论语篇格律清晰明了,使受众容易把握语篇信息流动的去向,更好地理解语篇,从而达到实现社论引导舆论的目的。此外,N5中一个语篇相担任两个角色的特点,使该社论层层相连,有利于语篇对所评论的新闻事件进行更深入地论证和剖析,更好地实现社论目的。

相比较而言,L1篇幅短小,共有5段,语篇格律简单明了,出现了4个宏观主位和1个宏观新信息。4个宏观主位分别出现在:标题、标题后续文字、第1段和第3段。宏观新信息出现在第5段(详见附录2的L1语篇)。第3段的宏观主位同时担任超新信息的角色。具体说来,第3段在社论中的第1段至第3段这一个语篇相中,充当超新信息的角色,而在第3段以后的语篇相中,又起到宏观主位的作用,使得社论各部分紧密相连。虽然N5和 L1这一组社论都是支持/赞同+提议,但是N5中通过使用段落小标题作为宏观主位,从多方面论证所评论的主题,使社论论证充实丰满,极具广度和深度。和社论N5相比,L1因较少出现宏观主位,似乎稍欠说服力,论证缺乏广度和深度。但是,L1的标题后续文字,弥补了这一缺点,明确了社论的态度和立场。

第三组社论:间接支持或间接赞同。以N9和L7为例。根据Martin和Rose关于宏观主位和宏观新信息的观点,我们分析了N9和L7的语篇格律。在共有28段的N9中,出现了10个宏观主位和2个宏观新信息。10个宏观主位分别出现在:标题、第1段、第2段、第3段、第4段、第7段、第11段、第16段、第19段和第22段。其中第4段至第22段的宏观主位都是由段落小标题来实现的,这一特点和N5相似。这些宏观主位摘录如下述段落所示:

(标题) If Reform Fails

(第1段) As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.

(第2段) Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?

(第3段) Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have.

(第4段) HOW REFORM WOULD WORK: Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant.

(第7段) 46 MILLION AND RISING: If nothing is done, the number of uninsured people—46 million in 2008—is sure to spike upward as rising medical costs and soaring premiums make policies less affordable and employers continue to drop coverage to save money.

(第11段) BUT I HAVE INSURANCE: While most Americans have insurance, many pay exorbitant rates because they have no bargaining power with insurers.

(第16段) BUT I LIKE MY INSURANCE: Most Americans get their insurance through large companies, with large group bargaining power.

(第19段) I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS: You should be.

(第22段) WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT?: Republican critics of health care reform have done an especially good job of frightening Americans with their talk of bankrupting the Treasury.

上述段落中的HOW REFORM WOULD WORK,46 MILLION AND RISING等段落小标题充当了宏观主位的角色,使长达28段的社论层次清晰,易于理解,为向受众更好地解释医疗改革起到了画龙点睛的作用。

2个宏观新信息出现在第27段和第28段,摘录下述段落所示:

(第27段) If reform is defeated, it seems likely that most of the proposed experiments designed to cut costs—first within Medicare and then throughout the rest of the health care system—will die as well. The legislation needs to be passed to establish a structure to force continuing improvement over the years. That is the best chance of restraining soaring medical costs that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the federal government.

(第28段) Any change as big as this is bound to cause anxiety. Republicans have happily fanned those fears with talk of “dangerous experiments” on the “best health care system in the world.” The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.

N9的语篇格律的特点在于第2段宏观主位和第28段的宏观新信息之间的关系。第2段宏观主位采用设问的方式,“Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?”预示了社论第28段“The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.”的宏观新信息。换言之,第28段的宏观新信息隐性地重现和深化了第2段宏观主位的信息,使信息兼具已知和未知的特点,更好地体现了社论的目的是间接支持的特点。同时,需要指出的是N9和N5一样使用了段落小标题,如HOW REFORM WOULD WORK,46 MILLION AND RISING和I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS等。所以语篇内部出现了多个宏观主位,从而使社论语篇论证富有层次,语篇结构清晰明了。社论的最后一段即第28段,用原点“?”和社论其他部分隔开,十分明确地告诉受众第28段是社论的结尾,也就是社论将在第28段阐明其观点,使受众较容易明白社论的态度和立场,从而更好地实现社论的目的。

L7共5段,出现了3个宏观主位和1个宏观新信息。3个宏观主位分别出现在:标题、标题阐述句和第1段。宏观新信息为第5段(详见附录2中的L7语篇)。第5段的宏观新信息兼具超新信息的角色,说明L7的结尾处的超新信息又兼具全篇社论宏观新信息的特点。这点和N5的宏观主位(第4段)一样。

4. 结论

本文以《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》有关奥巴马医疗改革的系列英语社论报道为语料,较为详细地分析了社论的语篇格律走势。我们发现语篇格律对社论目的的实现有重要作用:1)语篇格律体现的层级关系和隐性联系越多,社论的论证就越具有广度和深度,越能更好地实现社论的舆论导向;2)同一语篇相兼具两个角色,使社论各部分的论证环环相扣,主题论证的更加深入、更具说服力,更好地实现社论引导舆论的目的;3)《纽约时报》使用段落小标题充当语篇内部的宏观主位,使社论论证层次清晰,论据丰富,能更好地说服受众。《洛杉矶时报》则使用标题后续文字充当宏观主位,使社论语篇富有节奏,语篇格律清晰明了,有助于受众更好地理解社论的观点和立场,以实现社论舆论导向的目的。

附注:

① 感谢导师王振华教授,以及在导师定期举办的“语言科学和系统科学”讨论会上向红、刘成博、程微、张先刚、田聪、潘晓霞、蓝芳和李冬等同学对本文提出的修改建议。

Martin, J.R. 1992/2006.EnglishText:SystemandStructure[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003/2007.WorkingwithDiscourse:MeaningBeyondtheClause[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

王振华.2002.马丁论篇章格律[A].黄国文.语篇·语言功能·语言教学[C].广州:中山大学出版社.

王振华.2007.语篇研究—跨越小句的意义:导读[A].北京:北京大学出版社.

王振华.2008.作为系统的语篇[J].外语学刊(3):50-57.

王振华.2009.语篇语义的研究路径[J].中国外语(6):26-38.

附录1:

表1 《纽约时报》和《洛杉矶时报》的社论标题

(续表)

附录2:

L1: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health16-2010jan16,0,5035904.story

The “Cadillac” compromise

Yes, unions negotiated a better deal for labor. But the goal of controlling costs was preserved.

January16, 2010

Lobbyists for organized labor usually run into stiff Republican head winds when pushing their legislative agenda. But on healthcare reform, congressional Republicans proved to be the unions’ most valuable ally—albeit inadvertently. With no GOP votes available for the House and Senate reform bills, top Democrats and the White House had little choice but to make peace with the unions on the issue of taxing “Cadillac” insurance plans, giving unionized workers far more time to adjust to the new tax than nonunion employees. That isn’t fair, but in the long run the deal preserves an important piece of the bill’s approach to controlling healthcare costs.

At issue is the Senate proposal to raise about150 billion through a new excise tax on the most expensive health insurance policies. Many of these policies currently impose no or minimal co-pays and deductibles, which has the unhelpful effect of insulating policyholders too completely from the cost of care. The result is that consumers make needless trips to the doctor, and healthcare providers spend excessively on diagnoses and treatments. The Cadillac tax would discourage this type of coverage, injecting more market discipline into the healthcare industry. A more direct approach would be to cap the income tax exemption for health benefits, but a tax on Cadillac plans is the next best thing.

The compromise won by the unions would exempt more plans by having the tax kick in at a higher premium amount—24,000 per year for family plans, not23,000. The effective date of the tax would also be delayed from 2013 to 2018 for those covered by union contracts.

Labor lobbyists made a reasonable case that the new tax would hit their members disproportionately because many locals had bargained for richer insurance policies in lieu of higher wages. But the same could be said of any worker with a Cadillac plan—there’s always a trade-off between wages and benefits. And tax laws change all the time, heedless of the disruption that might ensue to those under long-term employment contracts. That’s why it makes sense to give everyone a few years to adapt, and why moving back the starting point just for union members smacks of special-interest favoritism.

Still, unions are hardly alone in taking advantage of the Democrats’ scramble to hold onto votes within their party. And keeping a tax on high-end plans, even if it’s delayed, will help temper the demand that’s contributing to runaway healthcare costs. The next question is how Democrats will recoup the revenue lost through the compromise (about60 billion over 10 years). Their focus should be on sources that, like the tax on Cadillac plans, serve the goals of health reform, not the cause of political expediency.

L7: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health18-2010mar18,0,378258.story

Closing in on an up-or-down vote

Tactics aside, the fate of comprehensive reform will be decided soon by the House.

March18,2010

Opponents of comprehensive healthcare reform have achieved something remarkable, if not necessarily admirable: Having stopped the legislation from being considered and passed in the usual fashion, Republicans have now ginned up a debate over the extraordinary procedural steps they’ve forced Democrats to take to complete the work. This ugly, gimmick-ridden process brings no credit to either side. Yet the fist-pounding over the shortcut being contemplated by House leaders shouldn’t obscure the simple reality of the vote that House members are expected to cast this weekend. It may not be an up-or-down vote on the Senate’s version of the bill, but it is an up-or-down vote on comprehensive healthcare reform.

Ordinarily, House members would vote on a conference report negotiated with the Senate, not on a Senate bill they dislike. That’s not an option for the healthcare bill, because a conference report couldn’t survive a Republican filibuster. The only hope for the bill is to have the House pass the Senate version, then use a reconciliation bill—which can’t be filibustered—to enact changes.

Yet many House Democrats aren’t willing to vote for the Senate’s version, in part because of the special deals some senators cut for their states (such as the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase”). So Democratic leaders reportedly want House members to adopt a rule that would deem the Senate bill passed if the House voted in favor of the reconciliation bill, which would remove the special deals and make other improvements.

Such “self-executing rules” are neither ideal nor uncommon—Republicans adopted 36 of them when they controlled the House in 2005-06. For the sake of transparency in government, we would rather see the House vote separately on the Senate measure and the reconciliation bill. But the exaggerated objections voiced by Republicans are more than a little hypocritical. And no matter what procedural swerves Democrats make to circumvent the GOP roadblocks, they will still need a majority to enact a healthcare bill.

More important, any House members who vote for reconciliation under a self- executing rule will be unmistakably voting to enact into law a sweeping change in the healthcare system, extending coverage to millions of the uninsured, outlawing abusive insurance industry practices, promoting higher-quality care and attacking the incentives that drive up costs. At the same time, they’ll be voting to improve the Senate’s approach by eliminating special deals and making insurance more affordable to the working poor. That’s not an abuse of power, that’s a win-win.