3 ms·
From the article: "One practice that introduces bias into the shaping of defense policy is the revolving door between the U.S. government and the weapons indust
by kamranjon 3y ago
From the article:
"One practice that introduces bias into the shaping of defense policy is the revolving door between the U.S. government and the weapons industry. The movement of retired senior officials from the Pentagon and the military services into the arms industry is a longstanding practice that raises serious questions about the appearance and reality of conflicts of interest. Mostly because employing well-connected ex-military officers can give weapons makers enormous, unwarranted influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon budget."
This seems to answer your confusion about why they are concerned about this.
The article also seems to suggest that they aren't trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs, they would just like to regulate it better, the first two proposals seeming to be pretty important:
- Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually.
- Extend “cooling off periods” before retired officials can go to work for the arms industry to four years. This would ensure that key contacts or key information that the official may have been privy to while serving would not provide an outsized advantage.
- paulddraper 3y agoSo .... McDonald's?
- WaxProlix 3y agoThese are retirees, they have pensions, this isn't a McDonalds situation and you know it.
- paulddraper 3y ago> The article also seems to suggest that they AREN'T trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs
- kamranjon 3y agoYou purposefully left off the end of the sentence? You know, the part about regulation? Cause nowhere in the article does it say they are trying to stop retired generals from taking these jobs, just that they would like to regulate it to prevent conflicts of interest. I get the feeling that maybe you haven’t read the article yet?
- paulddraper 3y agoI was responding to: > These are retirees, they have pensions
- mattmcknight 3y agoRetiring at 51 after a 30 year role is not conducive to survival on the pension.
- WaxProlix 3y agoSo is the issue that they'd have to work at McDonald's or that they don't want to return to their pre elevation job? Or that they want a cushy retirement job somewhere? Something else? Be clear if you're trying to make a point please.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mattmcknight 3y agoThe idea that a government pension should sustain you from 50 onwards is not a good one.
- pstuart 3y agoAnd their pensions are way better than most everybody else: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/senator-questions-retirement-perks-for-generals-and-admirals https://www.pogo.org/analysis/senator-questions-retirement-p...
- mattmcknight 3y agoIt's not a revolving door though. People aren't going back into the military from contractor roles.