NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label US military contractors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US military contractors. Show all posts

03 January 2013

Excess-profits tax on defense contractors during wartime is long overdue 31DEZ12

NOT only should an excess-profits tax be levied on all defense contractors, but the military should also go back to training troops to be cooks and medics, truckers and tank drivers, supply troops as infantry and mortar teams. It is ridiculous to pay the outrageous rates military contractors charge for the services to the troops that the troops could perform with the proper training. AND the bloated officer corps needs to be reduced to the level where these men and women actually have to work for their rank and pay and benefits. At least 2/3 of the generals, the leaches of the pentagon, need to be reduced in rank and put to work or let go from the military and their "flotillas" eliminated, the remaining generals need to have their "flotillas" reduced from costing the pentagon approximately $1,000,000 each to approximately $100,000 each. If they need more pampering than that they can pay for it, just like enlisted men and women have to pay for essentials they need but not provided by the pentagon. There's more on budgetary waste by the pentagon at my earlier post 7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our.html
This from the Washington Post.....

By

No one can safely predict what will happen in 2013, but here are a few things I would like to see occur when it comes to national security.
My most radical idea — and it should have been done 10 years ago — is for an excess-profits tax on defense contractors while we have troops fighting overseas. As I have often noted, Afghanistan and Iraq are the first U.S. wars in which taxes were not raised to pay for the fighting. Instead, the cost has been put on a credit card.
In World Wars I and II and the Korean War, Congress approved new taxes, including one directed at defense contractors. In introducing his request in 1940 for a “steeply graduated excess-profits tax,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the government should make sure that “a few do not gain from the sacrifices of many.”
Since 2002, profits of the five largest U.S.-based defense contractors have “increased by a whopping 450 percent,” said Lawrence J. Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Profits of the five rose from $2.4 billion in 2002, adjusted for inflation, to $13.4 billion in 2011, according to an August study co-written by Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense for manpower during 1981-85 and an expert on Pentagon spending
“This success applied both to companies with large civilian sections of their businesses and to those almost wholly dependent on defense funding,” Korb wrote. He noted that defense profits faltered at the beginning of the recession but “rapidly recovered, rising over 40 percent between 2008 and 2011 and nearly returning to their 2007 peak.”
“In short, the largest defense contractors have prospered to a degree that would have looked very unlikely just eleven or twelve years ago,” he said.
General Dynamics was one of the companies that grew during this period. Its earnings went from $5.08 a share in 2001 to $6.87 in 2011, while its stock price rose from $38 a share in September 2002 to $66 in September 2012. GD stockholders also benefitted from increased quarterly dividends, which rose from 14 cents a share in 2001 to 51 cents a share in 2012.
GD has a monopoly on nuclear submarine building, owning for years the Electric Boat Division and buying Newport News Shipbuilding in 1999. In 2001, it bought Motorola’s electronic defense business and two years later General Motors’s defense division, which made armored vehicles and fit well with GD’s division that makes M1 Abrams tanks.
The company, like many of its competitors, hired former Pentagon senior officers and officials to be top executives and board members.
Jay L. Johnson, a former company president who retired Monday as chairman of the GD board, is a retired admiral and was chief of naval operations from 1996 to 2000. After retiring, he joined the GD board in 2002 while he was an executive of a Virginia gas and power company. Six years later, he became GD’s chief executive.
Johnson’s successor as chairman, GD President Phebe N. Novakovic, worked at the CIA in the 1980s and from 1992 to 1997 at the Office of Management and Budget. Her last position there was as deputy associate director for national security, responsible for managing and submitting the president’s budget for the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies.
The GD board includes Paul G Kaminski, who joined in 1997, shortly after he left the Pentagon following three years as undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology; retired Gen. Lester L. Lyles, who was Air Force vice chief of staff and commander of Air Force Materiel Command until he left that service in 2000, three years before joining the GD board; retired Gen. John M. Keane, who served as Army vice chief of staff until 2003 and joined the board a year later; and most recently, in 2011, retired Gen. James L. Jones, former commandant of the Marines, Supreme Allied commander and national security adviser to President Obama from January 2009 to November 2010.
The Defense Department revolving door has been spinning at an unusual rate the past 10 years, mainly because the Pentagon has contracted out activities that in the past were normally carried out by service members. Difficult to track but in need of reform are consultant firms created by former service personnel that helped get companies the inside track on Pentagon contracts.
Inevitably, as fighting in Afghanistan winds down, there are going to be calls for more defense spending reductions. Contracting out services should go down. A military compensation and retirement modernization commission has to be established, a new effort to raise Tricare fees needs to be made, the $200 million-plus earmark for congressionally mandated research on cancer and other non-military generated illnesses should be ended, and, I hope, some reductions in the $388 million spent on military bands.
Larger amounts could be saved by buying fewer than the now-planned 2,440 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters and reducing the future strategic nuclear force by cutting the number of new $4.9 billion strategic submarines, new heavy bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
No one is more qualified than Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to shepherd the fiscal 2014 defense budget through its introduction to the new Congress. Therefore, I hope Panetta stays on through at least April to handle what is bound to be a difficult transition for his successor.
Former senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who became co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board after being considered for top positions in the first Obama administration, met with the president to discuss him replacing Panetta in the second. No rush needed, but if Hagel is Obama’s choice, the president should get on with it and not be deterred by a handful of objectors.
Another nomination that should not be delayed is for CIA director. In this case, Acting Director Michael J. Morell, a veteran agency intelligence officer, should be named. After going through four non-agency directors in the eight years since 2004 when George Tenet resigned, the agency needs one of its own to provide some leadership stability.
Looking at today’s world, it’s difficult to welcome 2013 with a “happy new year.” How about toasting “a better new year” as we look to the future?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/excess-profits-tax-on-defense-contractors-during-wartime-is-long-overdue/2012/12/31/c8f03416-513f-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_print.html

04 August 2012

Political Firestorm Flares As Looming Budget Cuts Include Defense Reductions 3AUG12

THE military-industrial complex propaganda war is really heating up with sequestration approaching. Fear is going to be their main tool, and they will use it to turn the American middle class into factions against each other, the poor, and government agencies like the Dept of Education, the EPA, the Labor Dept, and against the social safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, FEMA, and Obamacare. Their primary goal is not the defense of the Republic, it is the defense of their profit margins. Unfortunately too many will be duped and deceived into believing all the fear mongering and so will push Congress (many of whom have already been bought out buy the defense industry) into cutting non-defense spending and even allocating defense funding not to provide for the essentials for our troops but to increase the profits of military contractors and weapons manufacturers. Profits above all else, because if there is one thing true in America, it is that war is business. One can't be faulted for hoping sequestration would take place because maybe, just maybe, the defense spending cuts would force our government to think twice before becoming involved in another conflict we shouldn't be in and force the US military to revert to the self supporting organization it used to be. To look at just what our out of control defense spending is costing our nation check out http://www.costofwar.com from the National Priorities Project. This from the PBS NewsHour....
SUMMARY

Should Congress fail to pass a deficit reduction plan by the end of the year, the 2011 Budget Control Act will trigger budget cuts of $1.2 trillion, evenly split between defense and non-defense spending. The result has been a political brawl on the campaign trail and between the political parties. Margaret Warner reports.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There's a familiar ring to this next story. Congress still has not agreed on how to balance the federal budget, and there's a deadline approaching.
Margaret Warner explains the latest skirmish.
MAJORITY LEADER SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): I want to also say a word or two about sequester.
MAN: Those who would be affected by the sequester.
MARGARET WARNER: Sequester, it's been the bipartisan buzzword of choice lately.
The term refers to across-the-board budget cuts that take effect January 2, if lawmakers can't produce a comprehensive deficit reduction package before then. The measure was part of the Budget Control Act passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Obama a year ago.
The sequestration axe would slice $54 billion from defense and an equal amount from domestic programs from Head Start to the Border Patrol next year, with more to follow. Though the troops themselves are exempt, the looming defense cuts have kicked up a political firestorm, on full display Wednesday at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The Office of Management and Budget's acting director, Jeffrey Zients, sparred with Republican Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia.
REP. RANDY FORBES (R-Va.): Mr. Zients, I'm just asking if you can tell me if there's any proposal you can put forward today, any proposal that the president has put forward to stop sequestration that has gotten a single vote?
JEFFREY ZIENTS, Office of Management and Budget: The root cause problem here is the Republicans' refusal to ask the top 10 percent to pay their fair share...
REP. RANDY FORBES: Mr. Zients, I understand your partisanship. I'm just asking you if you can tell me if that proposal -- can you point to such a proposal?
JEFFREY ZIENTS: There is...
REP. RANDY FORBES: Then your answer is no.
MARGARET WARNER: The verbal spat came after a weeks-long Republican campaign to sound the alarm to the public. Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have taken the message to states with lots of defense- related jobs.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-Ariz.): No uniformed military leader who we trust agrees that these cuts would do anything but devastate our national security.
MARGARET WARNER: House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon took aim at President Obama at a Mitt Romney presidential campaign event Tuesday in Arlington, Va.
REP. HOWARD "BUCK" MCKEON (R-Calif.): Has anybody here heard the word sequestration? Do you get sick and tired of hearing that we need to cut more out of defense?
MARGARET WARNER: And on the presidential campaign trail, President Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, have traded accusations about who's to blame.
MITT ROMNEY (R): Today, we are just months away from an arbitrary across-the-board budget reduction that would saddle the military with a trillion dollars in cuts, severely shrink our force structure, and impair our ability to meet and deter threats.
Don't bother, by the way, trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of that. If I am president of the United States, I will not let that happen.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There are a number of Republicans in Congress who don't want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts. Now they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to do. Instead of making tough choices to reduce the deficit, they'd rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans, even if it risks big cuts in our military.
GORDON ADAMS, American University: This is theater.
MARGARET WARNER: Former top OMB defense budget official Gordon Adams, now teaching at American University's School of International Service, sees a lot of posturing at play.
GORDON ADAMS: So this is a highly staged and scripted drama where every player is playing his or her part, everybody is jumping up and down, rending garments, tearing hair, gnashing teeth and making it look like horrible things like Armageddon are going to happen.
The reality is, I don't expect it to happen, but, even if it did, it's a slow-roll process when it does. But it's a great thing to fight about in an election year.
MARGARET WARNER: Some defense contractors, like giant Lockheed Martin, have tried to stoke the fight by warning that, under a federal 60-day notice law, they may have to issue conditional layoff alerts to their workers before the November 6 election.
On Monday, the Department of Labor issued guidance that layoff announcements were not required and unwise while cutbacks were still speculative and unforeseeable.
Armed Services chairman McKeon dismissed that guidance as politically motivated.
REP. HOWARD "BUCK" MCKEON: They have no legal authority to do what they did. So, if I'm a CEO of a company and I go to my attorneys for guidance, they would just laugh at that, because if they do lay off their employees and don't send the notice, then they are liable to be sued.
MARGARET WARNER: Fears of immediate hits to defense production lines in January are overblown, maintains defense budget expert Adams.
GORDON ADAMS: They will not feel the effect on January 1, in fact, because defense contractors today are working on contracts that were funded by dollars appropriated three years ago, two years ago, last year. And none of those dollars are going to be affected by a decision to do across-the-board cuts on January 2.
MARGARET WARNER: Yet, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter made clear at Wednesday's hearing that the administration is deeply worried about the impact.
ASHTON CARTER, deputy secretary of defense: Sequestration would introduce senseless chaos into the management of every single one of more than 2,500 defense investment programs, inefficiency into the defense industry that supports us, and would cause lasting disruptions, even if it only extended for one year.
MARGARET WARNER: And after the hearing, Carter told the "NewsHour" the dilemma faced by contractors is well-founded.
ASHTON CARTER: Each and every contractor who works for the Department of Defense has to take heed, because, remember, this is across the board. It is indiscriminate. So each and every -- you named a bunch of aircraft and investment programs. Every piece of our operations and maintenance, all of our personnel accounts, every single thing gets hit with this.
MARGARET WARNER: So it's not a political gimmick?
ASHTON CARTER: I have spoken to a number of our defense contractors. They take it as a serious matter. We have the same issue in the government, which is, we are trying to balance being ready if some -- this really terrible thing happens to us, and not causing some of its bad effects before we even have a chance to solve it.
MARGARET WARNER: But as long as this remains a hot-button campaign issue for both parties, no one expects a deal to solve it before the November election.

SUPPORT YOUR PBS LOCAL STATION
 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/sequestration_08-03.html

29 June 2012

Military Contractor Human Trafficking - Documents Released Under FOIA from THE ACLU 27JUN12

THIS report from the ACLU documents the illegal and immoral activities of U.S. government contractors, mostly military contractors, who are supposed to not only be working for us but representing us, the American people and government, around the world. Not only are these corporations greedy, but by tolerating these actions they prove they are sick and twisted. The ACLU is calling on Congress to crack down on these rogue operations, click the link to sign on....
REPORT: Victims of Complacency: The Ongoing Trafficking and Abuse of Third Country Nationals by U.S. Government Contractors
In July 2011 the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding that the government release documents relating to the trafficking and the abusive treatment of foreign workers on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, brought on behalf of the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, seeks documents from the Departments of State and Defense that detail audits and complaints about military contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The complaint can be found at www.aclu.org/human-rights/military-contractor-human-trafficking-complaint
The FOIA request can be found at www.aclu.org/human-rights/military-contractor-human-trafficking-foia-req...
Released FOIA Documents
 

Victims of Complacency: The Ongoing Trafficking and Abuse of Third Country Nationals by U.S. Government Contractors