« Report Shows Suspensions and Debarments On the Rise | Main | One Year Into the Open Government Partnership »

Sep 21, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef017c3208d053970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Sequestration Sideshow: Jobs and Pentagon Contracting in Context :

Comments

John

My question is what exactly would the Pentagon end up losing in a budget cut? Aircraft that the Pentagon says it doesn't need? Nuclear weapons? Toilet paper? How big a cut would it be after eliminating waste and fraud are taken into account? How about closing some of the 700+ military installations the US has around the world? And, let's face it, what defense contractors are mostly worried about is a drop in their profits.

Jack

These pigs feeding at the trough need to be exposed for what they are. Many of these contracts they are given are being sent to foreign countries for manufacture. Cut the military budget until it will fit in a bath tub and then it will be the right size.

Forums4Justice


Total Federal Revenues (TREV).vs Defense Spending = % of Revenues
......in trillions.....
YEAR.....TREV..DEFENSE.. % of Revenues
FY1998 1.721 \ 0.256 = 14.9%
FY1999 1.827 \ 0.261 = 14.3% Glass-Steagall repealed
FY2000 2.025 \ 0.281 = 13.9%
FY2001 1.990 \ 0.291 = 14.6% Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy
FY2002 1.853 \ 0.332 = 17.9%
FY2003 1.783 \ 0.389 = 21.8% More Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy
FY2004 1.880 \ 0.437 = 23.2% Ninja
FY2005 2.154 \ 0.474 = 22.0% Ninja
FY2006 2.407 \ 0.499 = 20.7% Ninja
FY2007 2.568 \ 0.529 = 20.6% Ninja
FY2008 2.524 \ 0.595 = 23.6% Recession
FY2009 2.105 \ 0.637 = 30.3% Bush Final Budget
FY2010 2.162 \ 0.677 = 31.3%
FY2011 2.302 \ 0.679 = 29.5% Payroll Tax Cut
FY2012 x.xxx \ 0.662 = xx.x% Payroll Tax Cut
FY2013 x.xxx \ 0.xxx = xx.x%
http://1.usa.gov/Hl0pXR defense spending numbers extracted from CBO monthly reports
- other sources reflect considerably higher Defense Spending numbers

I'm Not Romney

While the writer freely flings aspersions or exaggeration, he demonstrates same, as well as inadequate understanding of this arena. Before he levitates: I agree fairly strongly that defense contractors are too fat and waste a lot, usually in connivance with contractors and Congress and careerists (flags, mainly).

The NG paring of staff could be from a lot of causes, some of which you allude to. But you overlook that almost any large company benefits from innovation and (if you can believe this) from IT. In NG's case, just tweaking the procurement system for subs and vendors--a critical system--saves a lot of employee labor. There are also innovations in aerospace on the factory floor, e.g., in fasteners, what used to be all "riveting," complex wiring installation, and electronic testing, for example. Most of these produce labor savings. You also seem to entirely miss the point that the subcontractors to NG are the ones who, net-net, lose the most staff -- more than the mothership--when efficiencies are exploited. You also seem to fall into the trap of the companies and Congress by, apparently, believing that defense contractors just might be, first of all, in the business of job creation rather than providing the hardware and systems and services for National Defense. Is that really what you think?
Sure, top exec comp. is ridiculously high, but nary a company will hesitate to pay big bucks while cutting staff. In a capitalist system, that is fine. And note that these salaries are all capped by the usual DoD regs. That means the bulk of of the inflated comp comes from the bottom line, not chargeable labor and overhead and other burden rates. The taxpayers are not footing the bill directly or to nearly the extent you claim and assert due to the actual, well-known, ways executive comp packages are funded. Do you understand that? Finally, you, like some Wall Street financial analysts (not the good ones) and many media people (are there any good ones left?) are taken in by the backlog figures. These need to be analyzed. When you break them down, even for hardware companies like NG, you will find that much, if not the majority of claimed backlog is actually UNfunded. Rather, it is subject to annual or biannual funding, options that need to be exercised, and various contingencies. The test is: are these backlog funds bankable? The answer is almost always: no, as evidenced by banks and other lenders of operating capital not willing to consider these programs/contracts as collateral. So why even talk about backlog if you do it in the loose way demonstrated in this post? What happened to POGO analytics? Is this the quality of your research?

The comments to this entry are closed.