Talk about a major conflict of interest: the Boston Globe (also heard on NPR's Marketplace Morning Report) has an
analysis of the astonishingly high rise in pay for CEOs in the defense industry: an average of 200 percent. Obviously, this is not too surprising until you consider the real scale:
The chief executives of the defense industry's largest companies are taking home paychecks that have more than doubled in the past four years -- far greater than the average 7 percent growth for all corporate CEOs, according to an independent study based on documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Now let's consider the interest of a Defense CEO for a moment. He's supposed to be creating gear, weapons, and vehicles that protect our troops, right? Yet war makes a great profit for him. What incentive is there for him to move towards a quicker end to the war? Get out Fahrenheit 9-11 and listen to the defense industry reps talk about the profitability of war. More stats in extended.
More stats from the Globe article:
Compensation for William H. Swanson, chief executive of Raytheon Company in Waltham, more than doubled to $5.3 million over his predecessor Dan Burnham's salary in 2001.
United Technologies CEO George David [earned] $88 million in 2004, almost four times more than the $23 million he made in 2001.
J. P. London, CEO of CACI, whose employees have served as interrogators in Iraq, saw his pay jump 170 percent to $3 million in 2004.
Ronald Sugar, CEO of Northrop Grumman Corp., earned $6.7 million in 2004, an 8 percent reduction from 2001.
Here's one example of the conflict of interest: let's say that a company i considering whether to armor lighter vehicles. They could do so right away at a large cost, OR they could not do so, which prolongs the war. More importantly, they most likely will not have to armor unless there is a public outcry, and then that will lead to an even longer war because the soldiers will wait for those to appear before resuming full operations.
In addition, it is a symptom of the problem of relying so heavily on contracts with defense companies. First off, the defense companies certainly exert great monetarial influence on an election, and officials are often beholden to their interests, which are often war-oriented. Secondly, it leads to our taxpayer dollars being used up on these contracts which are often quite favorable to the defense companies. This money should be going towards more valuable areas.
The Democrats must bring this up. If nothing else, they should highlight the wastefulness of Defense spending right now. Whether or not you agree the Iraq War should continue for as long as possible, our taxpayer dollars should not be ending up in the pockets of defense industry CEOs.