I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 1 内线交易，软贪污，游说集团，一次交易就是几百万米。
老将文盲们掩耳盗铃没用。
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5432:
Are members of Congress corrupt? Perhaps we should define the term. There is
the terrible, "legal" corruption of pay-for-play campaign contributions,
with wealthy donors and big corporations paying to get tax cuts, subsidies,
special laws and "access." This is part of why our government is responsive
to the agenda of the 1 percent and their corporations only.
Even worse, there is the new "Citizens United" form of corruption, enabled
by conservatives on the Supreme Court who ruled that corporate money is "
speech." Now, corporations can threaten elected officials: If they don't get
what the corporations want, they can put up so much money to oppose - which
in today's campaigns mean smear - that official in the next election; so
that the person won't be able to be elected to any office again.
But the blatant, in-front-of-our-faces "legal" corruption of the current
campaign finance system is about raising and spending millions of dollars to
get a job that pays relatively little, not personal profit. It has the
appearance of bribery, with corporate interests pouring huge amounts of
money into the process. Of course, corporations don't do this for the good
of the country; they do it out of profit interest. Why else would a
corporation do it? By definition, offering something of value to a
government official with the intent to influence what that official does is
bribery, but in this case it is legal, because what's offered is considered
"speech."
So, what about old-fashioned cash-in-the-pocket personal enrichment? Are our
members of Congress corrupt, using their position to directly enrich
themselves, not just the 1 percent? This question is once again in the air,
and Americans want and need to know the answer.
On November 13, CBS's "60 Minutes" aired a segment that made allegations of
(legal!) trading based on inside knowledge and other "soft corruption" by
members of Congress. This is the segment:
The "60 Minutes" segment was based on work done for a book by Peter
Schweizer of the far-right Hoover Institution. According to Politico, "
Schweizer was a speechwriting consultant for former President George W. Bush
and helped write a book with conservative commentator Glenn Beck. He is
also listed as the editor of website run by conservative journalist Andrew
Breitbart." These credentials are major, major red flags on a person's
credibility. Even so, the "60 Minutes" segment is not partisan, going hard
after Republican, as well as Democratic, members of Congress. And the
partisanship of the investigator does not change the facts of an accusation,
if they are true. The accusations from the CBS report include:
Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) trading in funds that would make money
if the economy tanked after receiving secret briefings warning of the
pending collapse of the financial sector;
Members of Congress trading health care stocks during the health care reform
debate;
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) "just days before the [public option] provision
was publicly killed off, Boehner bought health care stocks, all of which
went up." (Boehner says he does not make day-to-day decisions on buying
stocks.)
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was also implicated.
In The Huffington Post piece titled, "'60 Minutes' Hit On Boehner, Pelosi
Falls Short," Ryan Grimm, writes that both Boehner and Pelosi were treated
unfairly in the "60 Minutes" piece. On Speaker Boehner, Grimm writes:
The public option wasn't killed by Boehner, who had no real power in the
previous Congress; it was done in by Blue Dog Democrats and a White House
that didn't push for it. The public option returned from the dead repeatedly
before finally being laid to rest - and there's no reason to think that
Boehner had any better insight into what was happening within the House
Democratic caucus than anybody else reading news reports at the time.
And as Boehner says in the "60 Minutes" segment, the trade was decided upon
and carried out by Boehner's longtime broker without any input from him. In
context, it seems even less suspicious: Around the same time, Boehner broker
purchased a range of other blue chip stocks, not just health care companies
, a defense that a Boehner spokesman reiterated to the Huffington Post.
Whatever the outcome of any investigation into the allegations in the "60
Minutes" piece - there will be an investigation of these charges, right?
This is the shocking truth: elected officials, their staff, and other
government employees with access to information and the ability to influence
legislation and regulation are allowed to own and trade in stocks. The fact
that members of Congress and their staff - and any government employee, for
that matter - are allowed to own and/or trade in stocks at all leaves wide
open the perception if not the actual fact that they can use information
that is not available to others for personal enrichment.
IPOs
A little-understood potential channel for personal enrichment, in or out of
government, is access to stock that is sold in an "initial public offering"
(IPO). An IPO occurs when a company "goes public," selling its stock
publicly for the first time. Usually when a company goes public, it hires an
investment bank to underwrite and facilitate the process. The investment
bank is supposed to sell the stock for the maximum possible price, so the
company raises as much capital as the market thinks the stock is worth. The
opportunity for corruption in an IPO occurs if the stock price is
manipulated to initially sell for a price that is lower than the market
demand, guaranteeing instant profits to purchasers of stock at the opening
price. This manipulation cheats the company, as the difference between the
initial price and the demand-based price is channeled elsewhere. Since this
form of price manipulation is under the control of the investment bank that
is managing the IPO (with a wink and a nod from executives of the company
that is offering the stock), the opportunity for access to the guaranteed
quick profit offered by a manipulated IPO can be traded for favors. And, as
we know, Congress has, over the years, granted lots of favors to Wall Street.
When you hear about the price of a stock increasing right after the company
goes public, this is a sign that the pricing may have been manipulated,
bringing with it the opportunity for corruption through the offering of
access to purchasing at the opening price. For example, if a company goes
public for $20 a share, and the price rises to $25 right after the opening,
anyone who was able to purchase at the opening price of $20 makes a quick 25
percent profit, while the company raised 25 percent less capital than it
could have. Access to stock as it is initially sold in an IPO, therefore,
can be a huge opportunity for guaranteed profit, like being offered a deal
along the lines of, "If you buy this house today for $100,000, tomorrow I
will buy back it from you for $150,000."
According to the "60 Minutes" segment, former Speaker Pelosi was able to
participate in IPOs, including the 2008 VISA IPO. From the transcript:
"... former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have participated in
at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a
troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies,
began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict
of interest, the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial
price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64."
In Pelosi's defense, along with the previously mentioned defense of Speaker
Boehner, Huffington Post's Grimm writes in, "'60 Minutes' Hit On Boehner,
Pelosi Falls Short":
... CBS leaves out the fact that the bill passed out of committee at the
very end of the legislative session, as Congress was dealing with the Wall
Street implosion and bailout, and that the chamber then adjourned until the
election. More importantly, Democrats didn't have the votes for it in the
Senate and the notion that President Bush would have signed it if they did
is far-fetched.
... Pelosi's office also noted that there was no preferential treatment. Her
husband purchased the shares, participating in the largest IPO in history,
which raised $17.9 billion. He continued to buy shares on the open market as
the price continued to rise.
In the '90s former House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Washington) participated in 42
of these special-access IPOs.
Rep. and then Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) was involved in such
offerings - in one case a $5,000 investment became $225,000.
Former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-New York) was also granted access to
IPOs:
According to his new financial filing, the New York Republican tripled an $
18,000 investment overnight when a friendly broker provided him first chance
at a new stock offering - known as an initial public offering, or I.P.O. -
unavailable to ordinary investors.
D'Amato received this special stock from a firm that was under investigation
by a Senate committee on which D'Amato was the chairman at the time.
Beyond Stocks - Other Opportunities
There are lots of ways to enrich public officials. In the 1960s, there were
rumors that Howard Hughes would use land parcels to make payoffs. Public
officials were advised to purchase certain land parcels. Soon after the
purchase, it was "discovered" that the parcels had oil under them, and a
company would buy them for a huge markup. The public officials were
generously rewarded. Word is that there are worthless parcels all over the
southwest that are supposed to have oil under them, but really do not.
The "60 Minutes" segment alleges that former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-
Illinois) used his office (legally) for personal enrichment. From the
transcript:
Congressmen and senators also seem to have a special knack for land and real
estate deals. When Illinois Congressman Dennis Hastert became speaker of
the House in 1999, he was worth a few hundred thousand dollars. He left the
job eight years later a multi-millionaire.
Jan Strasma: The road that Hastert wants to build will go through these farm
fields right here.
In 2005, Speaker Hastert got a $207 million federal earmark to build the
Prairie Parkway through these cornfields near his home. What Jan Strasma and
his neighbors didn't know was that Hastert had also bought some land
adjacent to where the highway is supposed to go.
Strasma: And five months after this earmark went through he sold that land
and made a bundle of money.
Kroft: How much?
Strasma: Two million dollars.
... We stopped by the former speaker's farm, to ask him about the land deal,
but he was off in Washington where he now works as a lobbyist. His office
told us that property values in the area began to appreciate even before the
earmark and that the Hastert land was several miles from the nearest exit.
The "60 Minutes" segment also alleges that former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New
Hampshire) (legally) used his office for personal enrichment:
But the same good fortune befell former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg,
who helped steer nearly $70 million dollars in government funds towards
redeveloping this defunct Air Force base, which he and his brother both had
a commercial interest in. Gregg has said that he violated no congressional
rules.
The Revolving Door
Another commonly used opportunity for personal enrichment occurs when
elected officials, their staff, and other government employees are
susceptible to trading favors for lucrative future jobs. The practice of
going from a government job to a job in an industry they regulated is called
the "revolving door." Watch this November 6 "60 Minutes" segment in which
convicted Congress-briber Jack Abramoff explains how it is done:
From the transcript, Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook:
But the "best way" to get a congressional office to do his bidding - he says
- was to offer a staffer a job that could triple his salary.
Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were
important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say
or my staff would say to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're
done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work
for us." Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that
to 'em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request
from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they
're gonna do. And not only that, they're gonna think of things we can't
think of to do.
According to a 2005 Public Citizen study, "Congressional Revolving Doors:
The Journey from Congress to K Street," that looked at the Congressional
revolving door, as of 2005:
Forty-three percent of the 198 members who have left Congress since 1998 and
were eligible to lobby have become registered lobbyists.
Almost 52 percent of the Republican members of Congress who left Capitol
Hill since 1998 registered to lobby (58 of 112). Thirty-three percent of the
departing Democrats chose the same career path (28 of 86).
The Public Citizen study offered an example:
Former Speaker of the House Bob Livingston [(R-Louisiana)] left Congress in
1999 amid allegations of extramarital affairs. Within a week of his
departure, the former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee formed
a lobbying shop named the Livingston Group. The scandal that forced him from
Congress did not appear to hurt his earning potential as a lobbyist.
In its first year of business, the Livingston Group pulled in $1.1 million,
even though that was during Livingston's cooling-off period in which he was
prohibited from directly lobbying his former colleagues. The cooling-off
period, however, does not restrict a former member from supervising or
managing lobbyists, and Livingston took full advantage of that liberty.
Six years later, the Livingston Group is ranked as the 12th largest non-law
lobbying firm in Washington and had taken in almost $40 million from 1999
through the end of 2004.
Here are some other notable examples of the "revolving door":
Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana) was chairman of the committee in the House
that regulates the pharmaceutical industry. He ushered through the Medicare
prescription drug program that was so beneficial to the pharmaceutical
industry. He retired very soon after it passed to take a job as head of the
pharmaceutical lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
of America. Just HOW much money does he now make? From Bloomberg News:
Billy Tauzin, the former congressman turned pharmaceutical industry lobbyist
, was paid $11.6 million in 2010, the year he brokered a deal with President
Barack Obama that helped pass the health-care overhaul.
The lucrative "lobbying" door revolves not just for members of Congress.
Meredith Attwell Baker (R) was a member of the Federal Communications
Commission where she voted to allow the hotly contested Comcast/NBC merger.
Four months later, she left to take a job ... as "senior vice president of
governmental affairs" - lobbyist - for the newly combined company.
Solutions
These practices are apparently legal. This must change. But, of course,
Congress makes the laws, which means they decide what is legal and what is
not. Should they decide to do something about these problems, here are some
suggestions.
Don't let them take higher pay when they leave government. Members of
Congress, their staff, and other government officials must be prohibited
from going to work for companies they regulate or that otherwise can benefit
, if those jobs pay a significantly higher salary or provide other
compensation. It is the promise of future compensation that provides the
incentive to do favors for interests while in government office. Their
expertise should be allowed to move between government and industry - and
removing the possibility of compensation for favors removes the appearance
of and possibility of corruption.
Because members of Congress, their staff, and people in the agencies of
government are in a position to provide favors of all kinds to companies and
individuals, they should not be trading in stock at all, and especially not
allowed access to IPOs. Special access to IPOs creates the appearance if
not the fact of the offer of financial gain in exchange for misusing their
position.
To address the stock-trading problem, Luigi Zingales, professor of
entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of
Business, offers reforms in his op-ed piece, "Elected Dirty Dealers":
Rather than just extending insider-trading law to the US Congress (or to
other legislatures), citizens should demand that all restrictions and
reporting requirements imposed on the private sector apply automatically to
elected representatives as well. This would make these legislatures more
credible, and their laws more just.
Lisa Gilbert of Congress Watch, a division of Public Citizen, writes in "Isn
't That Already Illegal? Congressional Insider Trading," at The Huffington
Post, that the "60 Minutes" segment,
"... seems to be providing the necessary energy to finally spur action on
the STOCK Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Louise
Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.). This legislation would increase
disclosure and highlight conflicts of interests for lawmakers and ensure
that they do not benefit from their insider knowledge.... and both Sens.
Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Kristen Gillabrand (D-N.Y.) have introduced
companion legislation in the Senate that would change Senate rules to ban
insider trading."
Others suggest banning all ownership and trading of stocks by members of
Congress and others in government with access to information that might
provide and insider advantage.
However, these are really patchwork solutions, not changes to the system
that has proven to be so corrupting of our public officials. The real
problem is the use of corporate money to influence politicians, government
officials and the public. We urgently need laws prohibiting the use of
corporate funds to influence public attitudes, politicians or our political
and social environment in any way.
Not Everyone
It has to be pointed out that not all or even most members of Congress and
other government officials engage in these practices. But these practices
cost everyone because of the resulting loss of confidence in government. The
fact that Congress does not stop these practices shows us that, for
whatever reason, enough members want them to continue more than they want
the public to believe they have been stopped. | h****o
发帖数: 2455 | | g*********o
发帖数: 4653 | 3 所以说啊，人家缺德都合法成了仁义
要向洋奴一样夸奖洋人嘛，不然人家会扣帽子说是土工的奴才 | c******k
发帖数: 8998 | 4 最终所有的政府都会进化成这样。
is
,
responsive
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 内线交易，软贪污，游说集团，一次交易就是几百万米。
: 老将文盲们掩耳盗铃没用。
: http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5432:
: Are members of Congress corrupt? Perhaps we should define the term. There is
: the terrible, "legal" corruption of pay-for-play campaign contributions,
: with wealthy donors and big corporations paying to get tax cuts, subsidies,
: special laws and "access." This is part of why our government is responsive
: to the agenda of the 1 percent and their corporations only.
: Even worse, there is the new "Citizens United" form of corruption, enabled
: by conservatives on the Supreme Court who ruled that corporate money is "
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 5 爷是提醒你们，你们那老脸贴的冷屁股，都是气球，一戳就破的，你们贴的太积极，被
溅了一脸大便是很娱乐大众的。
【在 h****o 的大作中提到】
: 美国太腐败了！这样你满意了吧。呵呵。
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 6 这个吧，还是个实在话。
【在 c******k 的大作中提到】
: 最终所有的政府都会进化成这样。
:
: is
: ,
: responsive
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 7 这还有，一个小议员一把就捞６０万。
http://dadadada2u.blogspot.com/2012/03/legalized-corruption-its
Silvestre Reyes (D) is my U.S. Representative. Has been since 1997.
Yesterday's El Paso Times reported Reyes "used campaign money to pay,
reimburse and donate more than $600,000 to himself and family members." That
's the results revealed in a report released by a congressional ethics group
. Apparently 248 House representatives "used their positions to financially
benefit themselves or family members." (Rep. Ron Paul came in a paltry 2nd,
enriching himself/family by $47,421.)
Keep in mind, there is nothing illegal with this, it just looks kinda bad. I
sensed Reyes' deep awareness of the impropriety this appears to be by his
public response which leaned desperately on his patriotic service to the
nation, to wit: "My campaign follows all federal election laws, and as a
former law enforcement officer and Vietnam veteran, I take transparency and
accountability seriously."
In my e-mails this morning (3/24/2012) was a "Reyes Works" donation
solicitation for his upcoming reelection effort: "Help me continue being a
proven leader that you can trust. You can help by: Making a donation online
($1,000, $500, $250, $125, $50, $20 or whatever you can donate)."
I guess the the family income needs a little more tweaking (yet again!).
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】
: 所以说啊，人家缺德都合法成了仁义
: 要向洋奴一样夸奖洋人嘛，不然人家会扣帽子说是土工的奴才
| h****o
发帖数: 2455 | 8 你的小将气势很足啊。呵呵。你爸妈的脸太嫩否？
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 爷是提醒你们，你们那老脸贴的冷屁股，都是气球，一戳就破的，你们贴的太积极，被
: 溅了一脸大便是很娱乐大众的。
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 9 你有理讲理嘛；你妈的脸八成还没有爷的屁股嫩。
你要不要来解释解释，为啥米国的游说集团一年花30亿米的天文数字来买通国会？
http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/131017/
If there is anything good to say about Democratic control of the White House
, Senate and House of Representatives, it’s that their extraordinarily
brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest
among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of
this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea-party movement
around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen
received at their district town-hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the
exchanges on the nation’s most popular radio talk shows such as Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there’s the rising
popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck,
John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds-on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall
elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see
Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called “a
long train of abuses and usurpations.” Solutions to our nation’s problems
require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008
presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning
for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3
billion that same year?
What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork
over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of
politicians?
Go “green” and let the world know what really needs recycling in 2010 with
the magnetic bumper sticker: “Recycle Congress”
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded
Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living
up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of
dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you
believe either of these explanations, you’re probably a candidate for some
medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of
Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and
control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives.
Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant
favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him
in jail.
Here’s one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far
more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs that
General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly
CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light
bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing
incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also
, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to
global warmers who helped convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were
destroying the planet.
The greater Congress’ ability to grant favors and take one American’s
earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing
congressional decision-making. There’s no better influence than money. The
generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant
a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another
group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means
Committee chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior “was a
violation of the rules of the House, it was not something that jeopardized
our country in any way.” Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel’s corruption
. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized
corruption that’s a part of Washington’s daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation’s constitutional reawakening will begin to deliver us
from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to
three-quarters of what Congress does. Our Constitution’s father, James
Madison, explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to
the federal government, are few and defined … (to be) exercised principally
on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”
【在 h****o 的大作中提到】
: 你的小将气势很足啊。呵呵。你爸妈的脸太嫩否？
| g*********o
发帖数: 4653 | 10 多学学人家立牌坊的技巧
That
group
financially
,
I
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 这还有，一个小议员一把就捞６０万。
: http://dadadada2u.blogspot.com/2012/03/legalized-corruption-its
: Silvestre Reyes (D) is my U.S. Representative. Has been since 1997.
: Yesterday's El Paso Times reported Reyes "used campaign money to pay,
: reimburse and donate more than $600,000 to himself and family members." That
: 's the results revealed in a report released by a congressional ethics group
: . Apparently 248 House representatives "used their positions to financially
: benefit themselves or family members." (Rep. Ron Paul came in a paltry 2nd,
: enriching himself/family by $47,421.)
: Keep in mind, there is nothing illegal with this, it just looks kinda bad. I
| | | h****o
发帖数: 2455 | 11 大老爷门，你不要以屁股嫩为荣嘛。俺再次重复，美帝很腐败，比中国腐败多了。你还
有啥不满意的啊？呵呵。
House
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 你有理讲理嘛；你妈的脸八成还没有爷的屁股嫩。
: 你要不要来解释解释，为啥米国的游说集团一年花30亿米的天文数字来买通国会？
: http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/131017/
: If there is anything good to say about Democratic control of the White House
: , Senate and House of Representatives, it’s that their extraordinarily
: brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest
: among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of
: this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea-party movement
: around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen
: received at their district town-hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 12 米帝立牌坊是有专款的。
【在 g*********o 的大作中提到】
: 多学学人家立牌坊的技巧
:
: That
: group
: financially
: ,
: I
| h****o
发帖数: 2455 | 13 好了，俺不逗你了。撤了。最后跟你说一句，我说美国很腐败是针对你现在的年龄来说
的。说多了你也不理解。等你岁数再大点，我可能会跟你说，lobby 是有合理因素的，
而且很大。不管多坏的规则，只要能写到书面上，法律里，总是比潜规则强。 | I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 14 米帝的屁股是你们老将的奶酪，爷就是偶尔戳戳听个爆响娱乐一下大众而已。
下面还有： 一个小市长，年薪80万。
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/15/local/la-me-bell-salary
Is A City Manager Worth $800,000?
Bell isn't a big town, or a wealthy one. But some of its top officials are
paid two or three times as much as their counterparts elsewhere
July 15, 2010|Jeff Gottlieb and Ruben Vives
Bell, one of the poorest cities in Los Angeles County, pays its top
officials some of the highest salaries in the nation, including nearly $800,
000 annually for its city manager, according to documents reviewed by The
Times.
In addition to the $787,637 salary of Chief Administrative Officer Robert
Rizzo, Bell pays Police Chief Randy Adams $457,000 a year, about 50% more
than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck or Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee
Baca and more than double New York City's police commissioner. Assistant
City Manager Angela Spaccia makes $376,288 annually, more than most city
managers.
【在 h****o 的大作中提到】
: 大老爷门，你不要以屁股嫩为荣嘛。俺再次重复，美帝很腐败，比中国腐败多了。你还
: 有啥不满意的啊？呵呵。
:
: House
| I******a
发帖数: 3812 | 15 你不要跟爷装逼了，爷出来混的时候，你千老还没开始申请呢。
爷摆的是事实，你挤出来的是Value Judgment, 你也清楚哪个更有说服力。
【在 h****o 的大作中提到】
: 好了，俺不逗你了。撤了。最后跟你说一句，我说美国很腐败是针对你现在的年龄来说
: 的。说多了你也不理解。等你岁数再大点，我可能会跟你说，lobby 是有合理因素的，
: 而且很大。不管多坏的规则，只要能写到书面上，法律里，总是比潜规则强。
| g*****c
发帖数: 4378 | 16 看得出你对美国的本质还是看得比较透彻的
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 你不要跟爷装逼了，爷出来混的时候，你千老还没开始申请呢。
: 爷摆的是事实，你挤出来的是Value Judgment, 你也清楚哪个更有说服力。
| s********n
发帖数: 26222 | 17 i am very shocked,en.
is
,
responsive
【在 I******a 的大作中提到】
: 内线交易，软贪污，游说集团，一次交易就是几百万米。
: 老将文盲们掩耳盗铃没用。
: http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5432:
: Are members of Congress corrupt? Perhaps we should define the term. There is
: the terrible, "legal" corruption of pay-for-play campaign contributions,
: with wealthy donors and big corporations paying to get tax cuts, subsidies,
: special laws and "access." This is part of why our government is responsive
: to the agenda of the 1 percent and their corporations only.
: Even worse, there is the new "Citizens United" form of corruption, enabled
: by conservatives on the Supreme Court who ruled that corporate money is "
|
|
