 |
| |
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
Part of the problem comes from lobbyists. I have posted a list of a few prominent lobbyists and their relationships to politicians. This is from "Pigs at the Trough". Lobbyists first, their relationship, then the politician and lastly his position in the 107th congress.
Chett Lott, son, Sen. Trent Lott R-Miss, Senate minority leader.
Linda Daschle, wife, Sen. Tom Daschle D-S. Dak. Senate majority leader.
Joshua Hastert, son, Rep. Dennis Hastert R-Ill, Speaker of the House
Scott Hatch, son, Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah, Ranking member judiciary committee.
Phyliis Landrieu, aunt, Sen Mary Landrieu D-La, appropriations committee
John Breaux, Jr., son, Sen. John Breaux D-La, Chief Deputy Whip
Key Reid, son Sen. Harry Reid D-Nev, Majority Whip
Anne Bingamna, wife, Sen. Jeff Bingaman D-N. Mex, Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
excerpt from Pigs at the Trough: page 92-93
"Chet Lott, a Domino's pizza franchisee, recently decided to give up the glamorous world of pepperoni and extra cheese and get into the lobbying game. Now, Chet Lott did not got to Washington to lobby in areas of his actual expertise--to propose stiff jail terms, for example, for pranksters who order a dozen pizzas delivered to a stranger. Instead he took up the causes of BellSouth, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Day & Zimmerman, a munitions maker, and Edison Chousest Offshore, a boat chartering company that has no connection to pizza except that its clients like it.
For BellSouth, Lott weighted in on one of the most intensely lobbied issues of modern times, the Tauzin-Dingell Bill, which would allow the Baby Bells to compete with phone companies to provide long-distanceservice. Because the bill is ideologically neutral (Democrats and Republicans don't fall neatly on opposite sides) and there was scant interest from voters, legislators could sell their votes (italics are mine) with little fear of the consequences. As a result, the interested parties spent more than $32 million in campaign contributions between 1999 and 2001. Since the bill has passed the House but not the Senate, senators, at least, can count on the phone companies reaching to touch them with fat checks for years to come.
On behalf of the Racing Association, Lott is keeping an eye on a pending bill banning Internet gambling, which track owners fear could start a horse race to regulate their own industry. For Day & Zimmerman, he and his partner, former Representative Larry Hopkins (R-Ky.), have been consulting on defense issues, and for Edison Chouest, Lott is doing his level best to make sure that Edison continues to be the government's number one supplier of special-purpose vessels. Don't ask me what the government needs so many speical-purpose vessels for.
And don't ask Chet Lott either.
Despite the protests of his clients, one suspects that young Lott has been hired not for his expertise in dealing with sophisticated legislative matters but because his dad just happens to be Senator Trent Lott. Both men deny any impropriety, of course, and a BellSouth spokesman says that the accident of Lott's paternity has nothing to do with his hiring. "They just have to accept my word," the spokesman said. which I guess explains the recent spate of job applicants at lobbying firms whose previous job experience was "pizza delivery guy."
But someone is definitely getting ripped off here. Either Lott's clients paid good money for access that the good consciences of Lott pere et fils forbid them to deliver or the public's interest has been trumped by the powerful bond between father and son. Either way, in a modern parable, it would be only just if Lott's son--rather than Lot's wife--were turned into a pillar of salt."
This is just one of many examples from the 264 page book. Is it any wonder that we cannot have meaningful reform in Washington? Corporate welfare, insider trading, back room deals, nepotism, CEO's raiding the pension funds, CEO's defrauding stock holders, legal tax evasion, last minute legislation made literally in the dead of night, etc. What's a poor working boy suppose to do? My vote is only worth so much, and judging by the last presidential election and is even worth doodly squat. 
We need meaingful reform now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Spare a thought this morning, if you will, for Peter Ellwood. Mr Ellwood is the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, and the prospect in front of him today is not a pretty one.
In the six years since he took the job, the bank has gone from being the one the others had to catch to the lame duck. The shares have fallen by two thirds, and are now on the sort of junk rating which implies seriously bad news ahead.
Yet is Mr Ellwood downhearted? Not a bit of it. The shareholders have just received the glossy report and accounts for 2002, complete with upbeat statements from him and his chairman, under headings like "First choice for our customers" and "Driving down our day-to-day costs".
Ah yes, the costs. Every banker likes to say he's driving down costs. It plays well with the shareholders. Lloyds, says Mr Ellwood, is bearing down on costs, so much so that it managed to shed 4,000 jobs last year.
Earlier in his tenure he bore down on costs by closing the bank's final salary pension scheme to new employees. Fortunately for him, the existing employees were not affected and, at the end of May, he passes 60 and will retire, after 14 years' service with the bank. Others may be worrying about their old age, but he won't be.
Were his grateful employer to buy his pension in the open market, it would cost £7,093,775 - the sum which at the end of last year would have been needed to buy his pension of £393,875. Since then, he has accrued further rights, and the combination of falling interest rates and rising life expectancy will have levered up this "transfer value" still further.
By any standards £7 million is an awesome sum. It is based on his December salary of £700,000, which in turn is set by Lloyds's remuneration committee under Clive Butler, corporate development director of Unilever. The committee, shareholders are told, sets pay "to attract, retain and motivate executive directors of the highest calibre".
This is all very fine, except that even Mr Ellwood's best friends could not, hand on heart, argue that his performance has been much cop. On his watch, Lloyds made a disastrous foray into life assurance with the purchase of Scottish Widows.
Rather like those hapless members of the other Lloyd's (of London) whose capital was made to work twice, once in the stock market and again to underwrite insurance policies, Lloyds has discovered that twice the "work" means twice the risk.
It could have been even worse. Last year Mr Ellwood tried to take over Abbey National, which successfully ran his bid into the sinking sands of the Competition Commission. Then the Abbey discovered that it was deep in the mire itself, and had to jettison both the chief executive and the dividend.
As it is, Scottish Widows has turned into a black hole, down which the Lloyds share price has disappeared. All the bank's post-tax profit was used to pay the dividend last year, and nobody can see how the payment can be maintained.
Cutting the dividend would be the ultimate indignity for a bank which had ambitions to call the shots in pan-European banking. It's now far more likely that, should any truly European banks emerge, Lloyds will be taken over.
You would not discern anything so unpalatable in the accounts, far less any suggestion that the bank's low state has anything to do with the highly paid men at the top.
These days the remuneration committee, whose job is to think of a number and double it for the salaries of the executives, have to disclose their policy. Lloyds, we are told, is for "total direct compensation (basic salary, annual incentives and the value of long-term incentives) to be at the upper quartile of the market place, provided that performance justifies the amount".
This statement really does let the fat cat out of the bag. Note, in passing, the absence of the word "pay", before considering the phrase "upper quartile". In English, it means the committee wants to ensure the pay of its executives is in the top quarter of the league. Many other such committees have similar targets.
You do not need to be a mathematician to see that only a quarter of the teams can be in the top quarter of the league table, and that the target is a guarantee of inflation in executive pay, come boom or slump. As for the suggestion that the performance should justify the amount, that's mere lip-service.
Mr Ellwood's performance surely cannot justify still more money, but his basic salary was raised from £660,000 to £700,000 last December. Oh, and he also got £73,000 in benefits and "performance-related payments" in 2002.
Yet it's unfair to pick on him, since everyone is doing it. Mr Butler's pay at Unilever is similarly determined by a remuneration committee, whose policy is that executive rewards should be "in line" with pay at other big international companies. His "emoluments" were £989,985 in 2001.
Last year's accounts are out next week and, like those for Lloyds, will have, for the first time, to show the cost of matching his pension entitlements.
It is likely to be even higher than Mr Ellwood's, but Unilever has signalled its determination to keep its final salary scheme open to all British employees, and its board has done far better for shareholders than the wretched performance of Lloyds TSB.
Lucky for Mr Ellwood, then, that unlike most of us, his retirement prospects don't depend on how he did the job.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
Long, long dp...
Last edited by Provost Harrison on 18-03-2003 at 03:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, I wouldn't mind getting that kind of money when I don't even have to live up to my expectations and get to piss around all day eating lunches and playing golf... |
You don't really think these guys get these jobs on merit? They are major stockholders and this is part of their profit taking, thats why they can screw up major.
My wife's cousin was a lowly accountant until she inherited 5 million, bought 5 million in stock in the company she worked for, now she's the CEO.
Edit: formating
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2003 00:10
Someone agreed with my sarcasm... although they agreed literally... 
that's cool. 
|