By ANDRE FRANCISCO
The dominant voices in the debate over Pentagon spending have been the major contractors who receive an ever-growing share of what the government spends on the military. But their arguments have not been focused on the needs of the U.S. military, but instead on their own interests to keep profits up and CEO salaries high.
POGO's Ben Freeman had a new piece in Politico yesterday arguing that the need to have a real debate about the future of the U.S. military has been supplanted by hyperbole from the defense industry giants over potential job losses.
...the big Pentagon contractors have an overwhelming self-interest in keeping Pentagon spending artificially high. They’re pulling out all the stops to protect their profits — launching advertising campaigns, sending their congressional proxies on speaking tours and indulging in fear-mongering rhetoric — all designed to scare the public into thinking that any reductions in Pentagon spending whatsoever would be catastrophic.
More than anything, they manipulatively claim that any reshaping of our military would mean job losses — an argument primarily aimed at making members of Congress who are running for reelection afraid to make responsible decisions.
Read the rest of the Politico story to see why the rhetoric on job losses doesn't add up.
Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.
Before Cold War ended, studies of defense spending often
concluded with "the government (more or less) received what it ordered, and the contractors as rationally expected (more or less)received profits" this is hardly an accurate description of the state of affairs today. This is one reason the hysteria about Huawei is misleading and hypcritical.
Posted by: Charles Witteck | Oct 10, 2012 at 03:30 PM