POLL: Not really corruption, let's call it entanglement

Remove all ads!

There is a lots of talk about the Boeing deal atm in Wshington. The pentagon was going to lease 100 Boeing tankers, and subsequently, after protests, the decision has been halted.
Among the people in the twilight of conflict of interest unavoidably Richard Perle popped up, only recently cleared of accusations of another conflict of interest, that made him step back as the chairman of the iirc Defense Avisory Board.

As it has become more or less usual for former gvt officials to change to the business world, this has become particularly intense in the US, where program officers of the pentagon quit and popped up as program directors of the very program, working for the very company working on it - only weeks later.

The article is here

So allow me to ask: Do you think it is corruption? What do you think is a good idea to deal with the problem of conflict of interest?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 7 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Not really corruption, let's call it entanglement (7 votes.)

Do you think it's corruption? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 71% (5)
* No - 29% (2)

 

That certainly explains Daschle.

 

People in my government don't seem to know the meaning of the term "conflict of interest." It would appear the average voter or Bush supporter doesn't either.

 

I'm not so sure it's corruption. Many people who work for a certain company own stock in it. However, that doesn't prevent you from purchasing stock in other companies, or even in competitor companies. Just because these people have the means and support to get additional business to the companies they have either made investments in, or work for, doesn't necessarily mean it's corrupt. They have the same motivation as 90% of the rest of the human race, regardless of their political affiliation - to make money.

The main problem I would have is not so much that they are making tons of money, but rather that they are in some examples working for this company. These additional responsibilities make take away from their responsibiities in the government. As for shareholders though, it doesn't bother me at all.

 

Ahh... pure, raw, Capitalism?

I guess this shouldn't really surprise anyone considering the US is a Capitalist state, so the pursuit of capital surpasses all.

I do think it's funny that SO many people work for a corporation that makes killing machines. Stick with what you do best, I guess.

 

I always felt it is a conflict of interest when someone holding Boeing stocks is writing a recommendation to the gvt to buy Boeing, that os normal when he's a lobbyist. It's sleazy when he's a gvt official or advisor. But while that may be still sort of acceptable, it's getting really smelly when it concerns the actual decisionmakers.

I'd be glad to see a 18 month phase of 'abstinence' from the civil sector for senior officials, or a code of conduct that people with a potential conflict of interest stay aside in these particular questions. Should be hard to enfoce that though.
That's not for the US only - IMO this problem is universal where bueraucracies work, and governments interact with business.

 

Well, scandal ridden Beoeing seemingly didn't have much use for codes of conduct - underlined by their previous scandal about industrial espionage at Lockheed. There are rogue businesses. Boeing is one, Enron another. Or take GeneralElectric's Jack "Neutron Jack" Welsh, who plundered the company and devastated the US industrial base by moving the factories overseas and firing expensive US personnel. He produced constant surpluses, and left right in time to leave the discovery of the damage he caused to his predecessor.

I can't see a reason why professional plunderers should step back from looting the government. If they can make legal no-bid contracts or tailor made contracts thanks to inside knowledge only by employing ex gvt folks that's much safer than ripping off shareholders or making insider deals at Wall Street.
That is to say, there is a reason why these ex-gvt and pentagon folks are paid so well.

An 18 months vacation for ex-gvt officials and pentagon experts would not only help improve the health of the people involved, it would make their insider experience obsolete when entering the private sector. The step wouldn't even be unusual - no competition agreements are pretty common in the private business:
When you leave us, you declare that you will not compete with us for 18 months, else you'll be sued for contract violation.

[ December 13, 2003, 11:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Just a simple question...where else could the US go to obtain the desired tankers? Are you proposing French Airbus? At this point in time, Boeing is really the only domestic company that could fill that kind of an order.

Yeah, makes sense, lease Pentagon aircraft from the French, Russians or Chinese.

 

Well, the Airbus 330 would have been an excellent choice. Compared to the 767 it can deliver more fuel farther, and that - unlike the 767 - without auxiliary tanks (just read a comparison as both models compete again for a tanker deal in the UK). And the A-330 is more modern too.
The A-330 was rejected with the ridiculous argument that europe didn't have any experience with building tanker booms. Err. Quite an insult, industrial giant Israel developed one domestically

It was clearly a case of "not designed here" and everybody knew it. The point with the tanker deal is that the current US fleet of KC-135 still has quite a lease of useful life ahead, and that, according to some heretics, the Beoing deal was more to keep the 767 production line busy rather than to meet USAF needs.

And what's so wrong with buying aircraft from allies? The US expect half of europe to do just that. I don't see a reason why the US - European defense procurement relations shall remain a one way street.

 

My point is this, that the changing from ex gvt officials from their priivate ventures back into the government and then back into their companies - that IMO is one key part of the problem.
Sure, there are codes of conduct, but what I always ask myself if they are suitable.

I mean, for a pentagon official, with insight in procurement it is sort of consequent to invest in defence stocks. But the question is if his decisions in office are then really are in the gvt's best interest, rather in his own desire to profit from his investments. This Bush administrations emphasis on secrecy doesn't help to discourage these accusations.

You see a part of it atm in rebuilding Iraq and the debate about the contracts. Look at the unfortunate Cheney - Halliburton connection. That there is talk about it doesn't mean that the problems are solved, much less that there is no problem.

For gvt officials rejoining the gvt, after spending their business time at Bechtel or other companies, it is inviting to give the contracts to companies about whose capabilities they are informed - their former employers - they know about the capabilities because they eventually worked there, they know the people to talk to. That guarantees quick decisions, and quick action - but it always comes at a price.
And it results in no-bid contracts - because of the urgency or national security considerations.
Not unpromblematic, as can be seen on the example of Halliburton overcharging the US Army for Iraqi oil.

Generally, this lack of transparency, the stench of corruption and illegitimacy - especially about Iraq - where it is welcome propaganda aid for the iraqi opposition, like: "The US come there to give contracts to their cronies - that is in the essence they're looting Iraq, because they pay their cronies with Iraqi oil" - is a problem.

What I question is if the actual situation, with the current code of conduct, is affordable or if there is a need for improvement.

 

Hmm.

Over here we would call it corruption, entanglement, dubious relations, whatever. Everyone would scream bloody murder.

But its the U.S. we are talking about, so our rules and standards dont apply.