Posts Tagged ‘lobbyists’

7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars

Friday, December 14th, 2012

Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012/SALON.com
CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

If you thought the Petraeus scandal was embarrassing, wait ’til you hear how much is spent on military golf courses
By Laura Gottesdiener, Alternet
Photobucket

The David Petraeus scandal has shined a light on the luxurious, subsidized lifestyle of the U.S. military’s top generals. But so far, what the media has uncovered only scratches the surface of the abuses. Here are seven absurd ways the military wastes our money — and none of them have anything to do with national defense.

1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, “so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment — particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history.” The reality, however, is that there are nearly 1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror — and polishing the boots of senior military personnel — became Washington’s No. 1 priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).

As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”

But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives — whether their actual work justifies it or not.

2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million — per general. That’s not even including their own salaries — which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation — and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In Petraeus’ case, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That’s led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. This summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.

In November, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.

Panetta may have been tough — sort of — on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Wrong Fuel to Put in the Tank

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

This might turn into a more polished piece in the future, but in the meantime, the general idea can be shared!

By Andy Heaslet – PEP Director

On Monday, Feb 1, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates released their 2011 Defense Budget request, more than $700 Billion and more than half of the federal discretionary budget.  By Wednesday, the Post-Dispatch posted a video showing Senator Clair McCaskill spouting Boeing talking points, trying to convince Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, that we need more C-17s and to spend even more on an already bloated military budget: “The plane, McCaskill said, is proving its mettle in Haiti, where the military is using the C-17 to transport food and supplies into the disaster zone.”

Senator Kit Bond was also quoted in local media shortly thereafter, boasting about the company’s ability to perform “on-time, on budget,” as if we would accept anything less from any industry other than defense.

This time last year, when Secretary Gates announced the 2010 budget, he asked that legislators set aside parochial interests to make the budget and changes he called for (turning off the “spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11”) a reality.  Clearly Missouri’s Senators missed that memo.

Their words, McCaskill’s in particular, especially coming so rapidly after this announcement show three things:

-1- The power of Boeing lobbyists.

This company spent $16.85 Million on lobbying in 2009 , and is the 13th largest lobbying client tracked by Opensecrets.org, a nonpartisan website documenting “money’s influence on US elections and public policy.”

In Bond’s 20 year profile documented on the website, Boeing has given more than $135,000 to the senator and he has received more than half a million dollars from the defense sector over the same time.

Additionally, the senators obviously read the Post-Dispatch this past summer, when Boeing took out full page color ads to sell us these planes under the slogan of “On Cost, On Schedule,” nearly Bond’s exact words!  Boeing’s money and power has clearly had an effect on our senators.

-2- The misguided priorities of our senators.

I recognize that our senators are trying to protect the ~1000 local jobs associated with this plane, but for how many years are they willing to continue being shills for this company?  Most of the profits go to Chicago (Boo, Go Blues!) and it is becoming more and more difficult to justify more of these planes.  The American Forces Press described Obama’s concern over the plane as he unveiled the defense budget request, “The department reached its goal of 180 aircraft four years ago… Yet, he noted, Congress has provided unrequested funding for more C-17s in each subsequent fiscal year.“ Furthermore, we are approaching the highest water mark for requests made for this plane, or somewhere just over 200 planes total.

If four years ago, our senators had called for a regional jobs program for these and other workers, these constituents could all be steadily employed now, not wondering how long the production line for this plane will remain open!  Every minute Bond and McCaskill speak on C-17 and Boeing’s behalf is a minute they aren’t fighting for the majority of Missourians’ needs – and a minute we all are less prepared for the reality that lies ahead.

-3- A misunderstanding of the role America’s military is to play in the world.

While it’s commendable that our armed servicemen and women are delivering resources to Haitians as well as inoculating children throughout the world, and trying to build infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, that is not why we have a standing army.  “The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.”  While tragic and occasionally violent, Haiti represents no security risk for the US and is certainly not a military threat.

Should the US government help Haiti?  Absolutely.  Should the US military be the purveyors of that aid?  Absolutely not.

A little more than a year ago Admiral Mullen spoke to the role the military plays in foreign policy and American national security, both of which require “a whole-of-government approach to solving modern problems… we need to reallocate roles and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many in government — as an enabler, a true partner.”  Dollars for more C-17s in today’s context make this gap between military and the rest government wider, pushing us away from equality and partnership.

Senators Bond and McCaskill, I appreciate your efforts to keep our regional economic engines running, but using the crisis in Haiti to justify purchasing something that we already have more than enough of is the wrong fuel to put in the tank.  You should give the dollars that Boeing lobbyists and PACs put in your coffers to those suffering in Haiti and/or at home, and you should take the time you spend with Boeing lobbyists not memorizing their talking points, but asking them where these 1,000 local employees will be working once the C-17 line closes, which will be sooner, rather than later.