« FOIA Friday: The Fracking New York Times - How Industry and the Government Reacted to an Expose | Main | Morning Smoke: Pentagon Lost Track of Nearly $2 Billion of Iraqi Money »

Jan 28, 2012


Bryan Rahija

Appreciate your feedback Dan, but evidence that there is a significant problem with the revolving door is piling up. One recent study found that at the SEC, the prospect of employment in the private sector "may operate as a quid pro quo in return for favorable regulatory treatment." That's not the kind of system that works in the public interest. Check out our Revolving Regulators report for more: http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/financial-oversight/revolving-regulators/fo-fra-20110513.html

Dan in Virginia

It's okay to raise the questions as POGO does, but if there is an assumption of guilt for every general officer (G.O.) who leaves military service and takes a job in industry, then POGO's fears are more like paranoia. Which may be worse in a federated republic than the run-of-the mill graft POGO truly fears.
I agree with Gaston; would you want Raytheon hiring someone who was clueless on military affairs? I hardly think so. Would you want to restrict the freedom of a retiree who has served honorably? Only to the extent that reasonable rules that mitigate conflicts of interest are adhered to. This is, in fact, what’s in place. So, let’s use them. (Revolving door also suggests back and forth, not simply retiring after forty years. If Cartwright were going back and forth between civil service and military service, wouldn’t *that* be revolving?).
It borders on conspiracy theory for Dana Liebelson to report that there may be a problem when there is not. If Dana has evidence, please produce it. If not, stop fomenting conspiracy theories. This is unethical and does the profession of journalism a disservice. I recall one G.O. who was smeared by the press for no good reason. It hurt America. His name is LTG (ret.) William G. Boykin. Crimes can be committed in the name of false accusations as quickly as graft and corruption.


I don't get it. You didn't answer any of those "absolutely reasonable" questions in the fifth to last graf. Is that how it's done? Raise a few doubts/fling a little slime? Your doubt is not
crazy, though, but think a minute. We do want people in government who understand industry, and vice versa. If we place an impermeable barrier between them, we will certainly have a worse system than we do today, in the regulatory sphere and in acquisition. The problems include: more FUBARd requirements than today, longer lead times, less competition, and even higher costs. We do need a bang for the buck. If you keep the military out of industry, you may get a bill or a book, but not a sufficient bang any time soon.
All we gotta do is enforce the rules already on the books, rather than dither and bungle using the statute and regs. We need to stop allowing government folks to avert their eyes and not work for compliance.

The comments to this entry are closed.