War means windfall for defense contractors.
By on Sep 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
War means windfall for defense contractors.
Michael Brush writes, “CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.” Additionally, “The CEOs made an average of $12.4 million a year, easily more than the average corporate chief. Since the start of the war, CEOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics, Halliburton and Oshkosh Truck have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Vulgar and appalling when the middle class is reaching poverty levels in this country. This needs to be halted immediately. This “blood for oil” war of Bush’s is amoral, illegal and vulgar.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIt’s always been about “war profiteering” as we’ve all know. Now the proof is being outed.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThat military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. If MoveOn.org was around 65 years ago they probably would have dubbed Ike, “Lies and Power.”
September 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI hope the CEO’s of those companies have trouble sleeping at night …….. but I won’t hold my breath. They are the same type of scumbags as the ones slithering around in the WH now. None of them have morality, consciences or any sense of humanity.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pmOf course our defense companies will make more money. Is it their fault the US government was so lax with defense spending through the Clinton era? We are now just playing catch up in the stuff we should of had in the 90’s. When our enemies are attacking us, of course the companies that provide protection equipment will benefit. Shouldn’t they? They are protecting our troops afterall. Or don’t you care about troop protection either?
September 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pmRoger(x2) Spoken like a true “fat cat” republic. You are a throwback to the 80s, 1880s.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:32 pmg.o.p. = Greed Old Party
September 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pm…
September 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pmwhen did war profiteering become NOT illegal?
?
g.o.p. = Got Obscene Profits
September 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pmSounds about right for this group of greedy warmongering profiteers.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pmEncouraged, aided and abetted by Bush/Cheney and friends.
g.o.p. = Grifters On Purpose
September 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pmg.o.p. = Graft Over People
September 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pmSame as it ever was:
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
. . .
“The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.
“Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:
“Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
“Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
“Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.”
. . .
Same as it ever was.
Prof. Challenger
September 19th, 2007 at 5:41 pmI see the new registration hasn’t stop the trolls from blaming Clinton!
I don’t understand why people like rsquared believe it’s ok for a few people to get uber rich off of something that should be deemed as national security. Regardless of whether the occupation of Iraq was right or wrong or whether prolonging the occupation of Iraq is right or wrong. 200 – 688% increase! How much better would the veteran health care be if that money was available to them? (among countless other items that would benefit from the monies)
The military industrial complex is NOT a free market
September 19th, 2007 at 5:41 pmAnd this is what we are fighting for? Rx2, please stop with the Clinton stuff. You certainly can make your auguments, but dragging Clinton out everytime your administration is uncovered for what they really are – it gets very old, very quickly. Please remember: your president has been in office – with a repub majority for 6+ years – 9/11 happened on his watch. All the chaos which was created was spawned by bush. Oversight of government and industry is at all time lows (mine disaster, anyone?). Profits up enormously, etc…Please try and focus on the here and now – not ancient history. We need to solve TODAYS problems, not yesterdays problems.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWhen our enemies are attacking us, of course the companies that provide protection equipment will benefit. Shouldn’t they? They are protecting our troops afterall. Or don’t you care about troop protection either?
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Our enemy is attacking us? we’re in their country, killing them by the thousands, should they not attack us? we attacked them, you moron . and it’s purely and simply because we had too many weapons and too large an army that Bush was able to commit genocide and mass murder. You have it ass-backwards, as usual.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTo quote King George the Dumb: “Mission Accomplished!”
September 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — September 19, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Good Luck with that effort, Lefty. But it has been proven many times that R2 is a blind follower of the BushCo Follies. Iraq needed to be invaded because, ……. well, just because we had all those neat card decks and everything, and well, …. we just needed to invade. Seemed the right thing to do at the time and he still crawls along behind the BushCo sh!t wagon, smelling roses.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pmBut it has been proven many times that R2 is a blind follower of the BushCo Follies. Iraq needed to be invaded because, …….
because everyone knows that a military conflict creates more jobs and money for the military industrial complex and when their profits go up 200 – 688% then trickle down economics means that of those profits, 2% gets spent in the country and 98% get put into offshore accounts and foreign currency. Works great if you were rich before the occupation of Iraq.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — September 19, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Are you using IE and if so, what release?
I switched to Firefox and have had no troubles here for quite some time, other than getting registered for the first time.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pmThe problem isn’t that they’re making crazy money, it’s that they’re making this money because of war. That however, is the nature of their business. Unfortunate as it may be.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm> When our enemies are attacking us,
> of course the companies that provide protection
> equipment will benefit.
Right…always gotta have enemies that cruise missles can kill, don’t we?
Defense should NOT be privatized, period. Roger, why do we have to motivate people with money, you dont think we can find people to run the defense industry whose motivation will be patriotisim, not profit?
Sure we have to pay for materials, and for labor, but we dont need to put profits in any executives pockets based on how many people their weapons can kill. I’m sure Rodger knows alot of CEO’s who would be willing to manage a non-profit defense contractor. After all, many of them help manage charities. Why should this be any different.. its like the ultimate patriotic charity.
Rodger, you dont think we can find a group of CEO’s patriotic enough to help manage this countries defense industry without asking a fee? Or, at the very least, give them a flat fee for thier service. We don’t pay our soldiers based on how many people they kill…..so why should we pay the people who make their weapons based on how many people their merchandise kills (ie. how much is shipped and used?)
September 19th, 2007 at 6:00 pmWhen our enemies are attacking us, of course the companies that provide protection equipment will benefit. Shouldn’t they? They are protecting our troops after all. Or don’t you care about troop protection either?
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
How very patriotic of them. Helping the US, at a price of course. I can almost imagine the US Military begging them for some help, and the companies inflating the costs as much as they can.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pmHey Roger Retard
How many companies made obscene profits during a real war back in the early 1940’s , you stupid bastood ?
Everyone was expected to sacrifice in the name of freedom , justice and righteousness ; only the middle and lower classes now should sacrifice their children while fat GOP backing corporate slobs reap rich rewards ?
You should be slapped repeatedly………..
September 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pmOf course our defense companies will make more money. Is it their fault the US government was so lax with defense spending through the Clinton era? We are now just playing catch up in the stuff we should of had in the 90’s. When our enemies are attacking us, of course the companies that provide protection equipment will benefit. Shouldn’t they? They are protecting our troops afterall. Or don’t you care about troop protection either?
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
The subject is CEO compensation, Roger2. Instead of invoking the Clinton strawman, or the worse strawman about “don’t you care about the troops”, why not address that? Maybe it’s because even you would find it difficult to defend a CEO making a general’s annual salary in four days?
Actually, I’m betting you think it’s just fine. Just fine.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pmBartlebee, I appreciate your frustration. I have always had some trouble updating comments. The refresh key is seldom of much value unless I am on the opening screen. I am accustomed to backtracking, then hitting refresh — or visiting another site for a bit and then returning to TP.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pmAs for post # changes — I wonder if those are posts being deleted.
Bartlebee, I think you should try a little patience. You’ve essentially made the same complaint about posts over and over today. Give TP staff a chance to fix the problem.
98 percent of the world does NOT use IE. Currently, Firefox is at about 35% without having the advantage of being installed with every version of Windows sold on a PC. It is, in fact, a better browser than IE and has caused Microsoft to put a lot of effort into improving IE to keep up.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pmBartlebee
September 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pmAt the risk of stating the obvious — have you e-mailed Faiz at tp directly? Fshakir@americanprogress.org or Fshakir@thinkprogress.org?
I am pretty lame with internet technicalities — I just know I have IE and Windows XP.
“C EOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics, Halliburton and Oshkosh Truck have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.â€
I did the math with 50K a day for the CEOwhores to get to 18,000,000 a year. Know that’s a number that stands out, and should have been in the post.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:57 pmWell gee, thanks Gummitch. But your’e wrong about the Firefox stats. I can go into any number of offices throughout the DC\MD area and find nothing but IE on ever desktop in the bldg. Lots of web junkies are starting to use Firefox, but IE is still “the standardâ€.
And if it doesn’t work with IE, then it doesn’t work.
Period.
And until its fixed, I am trying to draw attention to the issue, cause chances are, others are having it and don’t even realize it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 19, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Hey, thanks for the condescension. I really appreciate your anecdotal evidence about the DC area as opposed to actual numbers. “Web junkies” started using Firefox quite awhile back; you might want to try keeping up.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:16 pmWe should to remember that to at least three presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, war profiteering was considered as treason.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pmWe should to remember that to at least three presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, war profiteering was considered as treason.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 19, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
and illegal, not?
September 19th, 2007 at 8:20 pmWell, back when I used to work for one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, (back in the day), everyone used IE.
Now, since I’ve only been working professionally full time in the field for about 20 years, I guess its hard to “keep upâ€.
And for the record, I was using alternate web browsers back before most people knew what Firerfox was, because they didn’t put IE on UNIX platforms, which is all we saw in the server room, back in the day.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 19, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
That was back in the day. Hey, I remember when “back in the day” meant some goofball was trying to load Trumpet Winsock on his PC.
The “I work in the biz” doesn’t trump ignorant comments like “98% of people use IE” as though (a) that was an accurate statement and (b) it meant IE was a decent browser.
The standard programming response I get at work when a customer complains about the lack of functionality in IE is “Tell ‘em to get a real browser.” Of course, this isn’t in DC/MD, so maybe the rest of the world is out of touch with you.
My suggestion that you try a little patience was not condescending, by the way. It was a polite request for you to act like a grownup — now THAT is condescension. Just so you recognize it next time.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pmFile under “Crony Capitalism”: You can’t have war profiteering without a war!
September 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pmTypical for the Bush crime family, and company:
Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits
by Evelyn Pringle
(Tuesday, April 10, 2007)
“Lawmakers need to notify the White House that all funding for Iraq is done, other than what is needed for the immediate removal of our troops from this disgusting war profiteering scheme.”
On Monday, April 9, 2007, the Boston Herald reported that the US military had announced the Easter weekend deaths of 10 more American soldiers, including six killed on Sunday. The Associated Press reports that, since the war began in March 2003, over 3,000 members of the US military have been killed in Iraq, as of April 8, 2007.
The military reported the deaths of four more US soldiers on Tuesday.
Its nearly impossible to estimate the number of deaths of civilians in Iraq, but the Herald reports that at least 47 people were killed or found dead in violence on Easter Sunday, including 17 execution victims dumped in the capital.
News releases out of Iraq also report that a woman wearing a black veil and strapped with explosives blew herself up outside a police station in Iraq on Tuesday, killing 16 people.
According to the January 14, 2007 LA Times, Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, says that, starting with the anti-terrorism appropriation a week after the 9/11 attacks, he estimates the US has spent $400 billion fighting terrorism through fiscal 2006, which ended on September 30, 2006.
In January 2007, Marine Corps spokeswoman, Lt Col Roseann Lynch, told Reuters that the war in Iraq is costing about $4.5 billion a month for military “operating costs,†which did not include new weapons or equipment.
Since this war on terror was declared following 9/11, the pay levels for the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have doubled. The average compensation rose from $3.6 million during the period of 1998-2001, to $7.2 million during the period of 2002-2005, according to an August 2006, report entitled, “Executive Excess 2006,” by the Washington-based, Institute for Policy Studies, and the Boston-based, United for a Fair Economy.
This study found that since 9/11, the 34 defense CEOs have pocketed a combined total of $984 million, or enough, the report says, to cover the wages for more than a million Iraqis for a year. In 2005, the average total compensation for the CEOs of large US corporations was only 6% above 2001 figures, while defense CEOs pay was 108% higher.
But the last name of one family, which is literally amassing a fortune over the backs of our dead heroes, matches that of the man holding the purse strings in the White House. On December 11, 2003, the Financial Times reported that three people had told the Times that they had seen letters written by Neil Bush that recommended business ventures in the Middle East, promoted by New Bridges Strategies, a firm set up by President Bush’s former campaign manager, who quit his Bush appointed government job as the head of FEMA, three weeks before the war in Iraq began.
Neil Bush was paid an annual fee to “help companies secure contracts in Iraq,” the Times said.
But Neil Bush is by no means the only Bush profiting from the war on terror. The first President Bush is so entangled with entities that have profited greatly that it’s difficult to even know where to begin. Bush joined the Carlyle Group in 1993, and became a member of the firm’s Asian Advisory Board.
The Carlyle Group was best known for buying defense companies and doubling or tripling their value and was already heavily supported by defense contracts. But in 2002, the firm received $677 million in government contracts, and by 2003, its contracts were worth $2.1 billion.
Prior to 9/11, some Carlyle companies were not doing so well. For instance, the future of Vought Aircraft looked dismal when the company laid off 20% of its employees. But business was booming shortly after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, and the company received over $1 billion in defense contracts.
The Bush family’s connections to the Osama bin Laden’s family seem almost surreal. On September 28, 2001, two weeks after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal reported that, “George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm.”
As a representative of Carlyle, one of the investors that Bush brought to Carlyle was the Bin Laden Group, a construction company owned by Osama’s family. The bin Ladens have been called the Rockefellers of the Middle East, and the father, Mohammed, has reportedly amassed a $5 billion empire. According the Journal, Bush convinced Shafiq bin Laden to invest $2 million with Carlyle.
The Journal found that Bush had met with the bin Ladens at least twice between 1998 and 2000. On September 27, 2001, the Journal reported that it had confirmed that a meeting took place between Bush Senior and the bin Laden family through Senior’s Chief of Staff, Jean Becker, but only after the reporter showed her a thank you note that was written and sent by Bush to the bin Ladens after the meeting.
The current President’s little publicized affiliation with the bin Laden family goes back to his days with Arbusto oil when Salem bin Laden funneled money through James Bath to bail out that particular failed company.
Probably the most eerie report about this strange group of bedfellows is that on 9/11, the day that served as a kick-off for the highly profitable war on terror, Shafiq bin Laden attended a meeting in the office of the Carlyle Group, and stood watching TV with other members of the firm as the WTC collapsed.
The fact that so many Saudis, including many bin Ladens, were allowed to fly out of the country right after 9/11, while Americans were still grounded, has always seemed a bit strange to most people also, especially when nobody in the Bush administration was able to explain who gave permission for the flights.
About a month after 9/11, in October 2001, the Carlyle Group severed its ties with the Bin Laden Group, but the Bush family did not. In January 2002, Neil Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia that was sponsored by the Bin Laden Construction Company and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the same Prince who offered New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani $10 million to help the 9/11 victims, a gesture that Rudy refused.
In the fall of 2003, Bush Senior finally resigned from the Carlyle Group as the accusations of family war profiteering grew louder. However, according to the Washington Post, he still retained stock in the firm and gave speeches on its behalf for a fee of $500,000.
Carlyle companies have also scored big in the Homeland Security bonanza. Federal Data Systems and US Investigations Services hold multi-billion- dollar contracts to provide background checks for airlines, the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. US Investigations used to be a federal agency, until it was privatized in 1996 and taken over by Carlyle.
Marvin and Jeb Bush are also highly successful members of the family war profiteering team. Marvin is a co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm, and Jeb is an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which is managed by Marvin.
Winston Partners is part of the Chatterjee Group, which owned 5.5 million shares in a company called Sybase in 2001, a firm that had contracts worth $2.9 million with the Navy, $1.8 million with the Army and $5.3 million with the Department of Defense. All totaled, the federal procurement database listed the firm’s contracts that year as $14,754,000.
And, Sybase was not the only company delivering war profits to Marvin and Jeb. The portfolio of Winston Partners also included the Amsec Corp, which, in 2001, was awarded $37,722,000 in Navy contracts.
Marvin’s business partner, Scott Andrews, sat on the board of directors at AMSEC, and the company’s CEO was Michael Braham, who formerly worked for Paul Bremer, the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for handing out contracts Iraq.
This is the same Paul Bremer who used Iraqi money from the Development Fund for Iraq to award 5 no-bid contracts to Dick Cheney’s cash cow, Halliburton, worth $222 million, $325 million, $180 million, and $194 million combined for the last two, according to a July 28, 2004, report by the CPA Inspector General Stuart Bowen, entitled, “Comptroller Cash Management Controls over the Development Fund for Iraq.”
As it turns out, Halliburton received 60% of all contracts paid for with Iraqi money. In a January 2005 report, Inspector Bowen concluded that occupation authorities accounted poorly for $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds, and said, “The CPA did not implement adequate financial controls.â€
The President’s uncle, William (Bucky) Bush, is the most visible war profiteer on the team. He sat on the board of a major military contractor called Engineered Support Systems. Six months before the war in Iraq began, on September 16, 2002, CNN/Money Magazine called ESS one of “seven defense stocks that fund managers like,” and one fund manager said ESS was one of two companies that “would gain the most from a war from Iraq.”
As a director, Uncle William received a monthly fee and held stock options. In January 2003, before the Iraq war began, he owned 33,750 shares of stock, but a year later, in January 2004, he owned 56,251.
The fact that Uncle William had an inside line to the White House can hardly be disputed. On March 25, 2003, Bush asked Congress for funding, “to cover military operations, relief and reconstruction activities in Iraq, and ongoing operations in the global war on terrorism,” and the very next day, ESS announced a large order from the Army for its Chemical Biological Protected Shelter systems.
Uncle William has become a very rich man since his nephew took office. In January 2005, SEC filings show that he made about $450,000 by selling ESS stock. But he did even better the next year.
According to the Excess Report, through a series of defense contracts, ESS earnings reached record levels and set the stage for the sale of the firm to another defense contractor, DRS Technologies, in January 2006, and among the beneficiaries of the deal was Uncle William, who cleared $2.7 million in cash and stock off the sale.
Its time for Congress to stop the direct deposits of tax dollars into the Bush bank accounts. Lawmakers need to notify the White House that all funding for Iraq is done, other than what is needed for the immediate removal of our troops from this disgusting war profiteering scheme.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:49 pmOf course our defense companies will make more money. Is it their fault the US government was so lax with defense spending through the Clinton era? We are now just playing catch up in the stuff we should of had in the 90’s. When our enemies are attacking us, of course the companies that provide protection equipment will benefit. Shouldn’t they? They are protecting our troops afterall. Or don’t you care about troop protection either?
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Making money is one thing. Making PROFITS is entirely different. War should be a not-for-profit venture. “Why?”, you might ask? Because it is the fiduciary responsibility of a for-profit corporation’s CEO/Executives to do everything possible to make profits.
To put it in stark terms, what that means is that it is in the best interest (and moreover, the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY) of all war-centric corporations to do everything they can to MAKE MORE WAR.
It is also in their best interest to make sure existing wars DO NOT END.
That is sick. Truly, and utterly sick.
There are countless other reasons, but the reason above completely justifies eliminating the profit motive from war-based corporations, without any other considerations.
Vile. You want an abomination? War is the ultimate abomination.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am“C EOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics, Halliburton and Oshkosh Truck have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390.â€
Why dont you complain about the pro baseball player signing 250 million dollar contracts and they arent doing anything for me.
Comment by ron — September 19, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Was baseball outlawed or shut down during a World War ?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:24 amRoosevelt insisted that baseball continue to keep the US population’s mindset the same , even during a conflict as brutal as WWII ; and how many LEGAL war profiteers were there during that era ?
BTW How many deaths has baseball contributed to , jerkoff ?