70% of the US defense budget is going to private contractors...Is that bad?

Question

Terri Everett, Senior Procurement Executive of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is quoted as saying "70% of the total Intelligence Community budget is spent on contractors." (some $34 Billion and many not even US companies)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/01/intel_contractors/index_np.html
http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl1206_foreign-own-def.pdf


Do you have any personal feelings on the matter? Is this the reason we're safe? Do those contractors have any accountability to US citizens? If it's working should we just leave it be or is it classic government overspending...the proverbial $100 hammer?

Answer 1

Well, whose bad is it? Is it bad for the National Defense? Is it bad for the Economy? Is it bad for Morale?

I think...all the above.

1. It lowers security at the base level. It takes defense dollars away to pay another tier or two of private management and ownership.

2. It creates temporary stop-gap measures instead of long-term jobs and new industries by, again, spending research dollars on ballooning payrolls.

3. It hurts Morale when the fighting men and women can't get a pay raise or increase in benefits being paid for with blood.

Answer 2

You know... the British Royal crown lost the Colonies using German mercenary soldiers. The only thing positive about your statistics is maybe Corporate American is on the verge of massive failure and we stand a chance of getting our country back. This idea we can just outsource everything and keep the consumers happy with low, low wally world prices is a joke. The failure of the Bush administration was not reinstalling the military draft.

Answer 3

You've got it with the $100 hammer. Who's to keep these contractors from inflating the bill? And why wouldn't they, if they can get away with it? They are, after all, businesses. They're over there to make money, not for patriotism. . . if they were patriotic, they'd give us a discount.

Answer 4

Actually I like the idea of outsourcing intelligence gathering to private contractors as opposed to spending the money on government lackeys who will leak anything and everything they don't agree with.

With a private contracter all the employees know the purpose is to keep secrets secret. They have one purpose gather intel as well as possible so the company they work for keeps the contract that keeps them employed. They screw up and they don't have a job. They talk and they don't have a job.

The beats some idealistic nimnal from calling the NYTimes because they don't like "something" the government is doing. Who died and lef them in charge anyway?

Answer 5

Unless they're Israelis contractors,I would say 99% of our budget ends up in israels bank accounts!

Answer 6

Here's the good thing. Once the job is over the contractors are gone and the expense is gone too. Not like government employees which never ever go away.

Answer 7

As part of a company that is in the defense sector, it is a great thing. The contractors usually specialize in whatever they do, giving the best quality work for the dollar amount spent. The system is working fine the way it is, and there is no need to change it.

Answer 8

Yeah but it helps lower the unemployment rate and frees up jobs in the US. Unfortunately buddies of Gw and tricky Dick Cheney are the ones getting paid fat from the war.

Answer 9

I think it is great that private contractors are getting the business. The gov't doesn't know how to manage money well. There is no "sink or swim" mentality with them. They have very little drive to succeed. It is just, "Can I get more?"

Answer 10

Oh no, we can make a song "steal all what you can steal" or a better one for the same people "kill all what you can kill be in the..." you know the rest..