Reform on the Road

　　Will the reform on the use of government cars really reduce office expenditure 1 this count? There are no reports 2 such an outcome although some local governments have moved in that direction.

　　Hangzhou government 3 its reform last month. Officials below the level of deputy bureau chief cannot use official cars for business trips. Instead they get subsidies between 300 and 2,600 yuan a month according to their administrative rank. This reform is supposed to save the government the money involving in __4__ a large number of cars.

　　Hangzhou in east China Zhejiang province is not the first to attempt __5.__ reform. Nanjing, capital of the neighboring Jiangsu province, did so five years ago. Yet there is no report available of how much money the Nanjing government has saved 6 these measures. All that we know about is. the fact 7 government officials get monthly subsidies for business trips.

　　The public have a right to 8 for transparency on the results of such reform 9 it is taxpayers money that is being spent. Transparency is needed because people are 10 about policy, makers making policy against their own interests.

　　Obviously, the subsidies are not based on work needs. Lower level officials usually travel 11 than high-ranking officials. Therefore, the impact of reform appears to be diluted.

　　Transparency alone can tell us 12 the reform measures have indeed reduced government transport expenditure. If there is no disclosure of amounts saved by the reform, the public may have reason to suspect that the reform is actually a ploy 13 the income of officials in the form of a transport subsidy.

　　The way government cars are used needs to be reformed, The government spending on purchase of cars was 80 billion yuan in 2008, and use and maintenance amounts to around 300 billion yuan a year.

　　A study of ancient Chinese dynasties shows that the more reforms of the tax system, the heavier the taxes eventually 14 on subjects.

　　The only way to prevent this vicious cycles from happening with government car reform today is for the higher authorities to have a strict and 15 audit of local finance.

　　練習(xí)：

　　1. A) on B) in C) about D) to

　　2. A) indicates B) indicating C) indicated D) indicate

　　3. A) completed B) terminated C) launched D) finished

　　4. A) maintaining B) maintained C) maintenance D) maintain

　　5. A) such a B) as such C) such that D) such

　　6. A) by B) on C) through D) in

　　7. A) which B) whether C) in which D) that

　　8. A) providing B) offering C) supplying D) asking

　　9. A) because B) therefore C) because of D) thus

　　10. A) satisfied B) pleased C) skeptical D) confused

　　11. A) less B) more C) faster D) farther

　　12. A) how B) which C) that D) whether

　　13. A) increased B) to be increased C) to increase D) increase

　　14. A) levied B) taken C) consumed D) removed

　　15. A) opaque B) transparent C) obscure D) ambiguous

　　答案：ABCAA ADDAC BDCAB

　　進(jìn)行中的改革

　　政府車輛使用的改革能夠真正減少辦公費(fèi)用支出嗎?雖然部分地區(qū)政府已經(jīng)朝著改革的方向有所行動(dòng)，但是，并沒(méi)有報(bào)告顯示支出減少這樣的結(jié)果。

　　杭州政府上個(gè)月實(shí)施了改革。副局級(jí)以下官員不能將公務(wù)出差作為商業(yè)旅行。相反，他們每個(gè)月可以根據(jù)自己的行政級(jí)別取得300元到2,600元不等的補(bǔ)貼。這項(xiàng)改革的目的是讓政府節(jié)省大量維護(hù)車輛的費(fèi)用。

　　位于中國(guó)浙江省東部的杭州并不是第一個(gè)實(shí)施這類改革的地區(qū)。鄰省江蘇省的省會(huì)南京市在五年前就已經(jīng)實(shí)施了。然而，卻沒(méi)有任何報(bào)告表明南京市政府通過(guò)這些措施節(jié)省了費(fèi)用。政府官員每月可能有出差補(bǔ)助。

　　公眾有權(quán)利要求此類改革有透明度，因?yàn)檫@些費(fèi)用花的正是納稅人的錢。納稅入要求政策制定有透明度是因?yàn)閾?dān)心決策者做出有悖于他們利益的事。

　　很明顯，這些補(bǔ)助不是基于工作的需要。低級(jí)的公務(wù)員比高級(jí)公務(wù)員出差更多。因此，這項(xiàng)改革的作用似乎很小。

　　只有透明度能告訴我們這些改革措施是否的確降低了政府的交通費(fèi)用。如果沒(méi)有公開(kāi)改革所節(jié)省的費(fèi)用數(shù)目，那么，公眾有理由懷疑這項(xiàng)改革只是官員用車補(bǔ)的形式提高自己收入的一種手段。政府車輛的使用需要改革。2008年，政府花費(fèi)了些購(gòu)車費(fèi)用，并且一年的使用和維護(hù)費(fèi)用也是較大的。

　　一項(xiàng)研究表明，稅收政策的改革越多，稅率也會(huì)發(fā)生相應(yīng)的調(diào)整。現(xiàn)在，唯一能夠防些政府車輛改革發(fā)生惡性循環(huán)的方法就是更高級(jí)別政府機(jī)關(guān)能夠?qū)Φ胤截?cái)政進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格而透明的監(jiān)管。

　　Reform on the Road

　　Will the reform on the use of government cars really reduce office expenditure 1 this count? There are no reports 2 such an outcome although some local governments have moved in that direction.

　　Hangzhou government 3 its reform last month. Officials below the level of deputy bureau chief cannot use official cars for business trips. Instead they get subsidies between 300 and 2,600 yuan a month according to their administrative rank. This reform is supposed to save the government the money involving in __4__ a large number of cars.

　　Hangzhou in east China Zhejiang province is not the first to attempt __5.__ reform. Nanjing, capital of the neighboring Jiangsu province, did so five years ago. Yet there is no report available of how much money the Nanjing government has saved 6 these measures. All that we know about is. the fact 7 government officials get monthly subsidies for business trips.

　　The public have a right to 8 for transparency on the results of such reform 9 it is taxpayers money that is being spent. Transparency is needed because people are 10 about policy, makers making policy against their own interests.

　　Obviously, the subsidies are not based on work needs. Lower level officials usually travel 11 than high-ranking officials. Therefore, the impact of reform appears to be diluted.

　　Transparency alone can tell us 12 the reform measures have indeed reduced government transport expenditure. If there is no disclosure of amounts saved by the reform, the public may have reason to suspect that the reform is actually a ploy 13 the income of officials in the form of a transport subsidy.

　　The way government cars are used needs to be reformed, The government spending on purchase of cars was 80 billion yuan in 2008, and use and maintenance amounts to around 300 billion yuan a year.

　　A study of ancient Chinese dynasties shows that the more reforms of the tax system, the heavier the taxes eventually 14 on subjects.

　　The only way to prevent this vicious cycles from happening with government car reform today is for the higher authorities to have a strict and 15 audit of local finance.

　　練習(xí)：

　　1. A) on B) in C) about D) to

　　2. A) indicates B) indicating C) indicated D) indicate

　　3. A) completed B) terminated C) launched D) finished

　　4. A) maintaining B) maintained C) maintenance D) maintain

　　5. A) such a B) as such C) such that D) such

　　6. A) by B) on C) through D) in

　　7. A) which B) whether C) in which D) that

　　8. A) providing B) offering C) supplying D) asking

　　9. A) because B) therefore C) because of D) thus

　　10. A) satisfied B) pleased C) skeptical D) confused

　　11. A) less B) more C) faster D) farther

　　12. A) how B) which C) that D) whether

　　13. A) increased B) to be increased C) to increase D) increase

　　14. A) levied B) taken C) consumed D) removed

　　15. A) opaque B) transparent C) obscure D) ambiguous

　　答案：ABCAA ADDAC BDCAB

　　進(jìn)行中的改革

　　政府車輛使用的改革能夠真正減少辦公費(fèi)用支出嗎?雖然部分地區(qū)政府已經(jīng)朝著改革的方向有所行動(dòng)，但是，并沒(méi)有報(bào)告顯示支出減少這樣的結(jié)果。

　　杭州政府上個(gè)月實(shí)施了改革。副局級(jí)以下官員不能將公務(wù)出差作為商業(yè)旅行。相反，他們每個(gè)月可以根據(jù)自己的行政級(jí)別取得300元到2,600元不等的補(bǔ)貼。這項(xiàng)改革的目的是讓政府節(jié)省大量維護(hù)車輛的費(fèi)用。

　　位于中國(guó)浙江省東部的杭州并不是第一個(gè)實(shí)施這類改革的地區(qū)。鄰省江蘇省的省會(huì)南京市在五年前就已經(jīng)實(shí)施了。然而，卻沒(méi)有任何報(bào)告表明南京市政府通過(guò)這些措施節(jié)省了費(fèi)用。政府官員每月可能有出差補(bǔ)助。

　　公眾有權(quán)利要求此類改革有透明度，因?yàn)檫@些費(fèi)用花的正是納稅人的錢。納稅入要求政策制定有透明度是因?yàn)閾?dān)心決策者做出有悖于他們利益的事。

　　很明顯，這些補(bǔ)助不是基于工作的需要。低級(jí)的公務(wù)員比高級(jí)公務(wù)員出差更多。因此，這項(xiàng)改革的作用似乎很小。

　　只有透明度能告訴我們這些改革措施是否的確降低了政府的交通費(fèi)用。如果沒(méi)有公開(kāi)改革所節(jié)省的費(fèi)用數(shù)目，那么，公眾有理由懷疑這項(xiàng)改革只是官員用車補(bǔ)的形式提高自己收入的一種手段。政府車輛的使用需要改革。2008年，政府花費(fèi)了些購(gòu)車費(fèi)用，并且一年的使用和維護(hù)費(fèi)用也是較大的。

　　一項(xiàng)研究表明，稅收政策的改革越多，稅率也會(huì)發(fā)生相應(yīng)的調(diào)整。現(xiàn)在，唯一能夠防些政府車輛改革發(fā)生惡性循環(huán)的方法就是更高級(jí)別政府機(jī)關(guān)能夠?qū)Φ胤截?cái)政進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格而透明的監(jiān)管。