more on defense contractors

It turns out that my defense contractor correspondent is a Libertarian Party candidate for California Senate District 29: www.DanFernandes.com.

Here is his second letter to me:

B.K. Marcus - Thank you for your thoughtful response concerning why defense contractors are on your list of the privileged. Some points -

1) You say - "The economic means to wealth involves convincing people to voluntarily part with what you want ... You will acknowledge, I trust, that this does not describe any industry supported or subsidized by tax dollars"

I do not buy your idea at all (as I understand it) that anyone who contracts with the gov is morally tainted because they are paid with tax money. What possible justification could you have? Surely you agree that the government "voluntarily" parts with the funding, and that funding will create wealth in proportion to the ability of gov to spend that money wisely. Whether spent wisely in your view or not, that is no moral reflection on any contractors. They are doing real work, with competative pressure, with risk, and without force or fraud. "Contractors" could include research labs, construction companies, etc., not just weapons builders.

Reason Public Policy Institute www.privatization.org works to have contractors compete with public employee unions, to increase value to Gov and taxpayers. Do you think contractors should refuse to accept the dirty tax money? Where is the value in that?

If you concede that gov has legitimate services to provide, and valid reasons for collecting taxes, then there can be no objection to contractors per se.

2) you quote Eisenhower who warns about "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power." He had in mind the potential for weapons contractors to affect foreign policy in promoting war for profit, as experienced in 1930's imperialist Japan. No such influence existed in America at that time, nor exists today, not even close. The key word is "potential" which is of course true.

The larger war danger in America is from the media. Our Iraq war had 60% public approval rating at launch. I credit Fox, CNN, USA Today etc. for mobilizing public opinion. W. R. Hearst incited the Spanish-American War. Too bad Eisenhower didn't warn about the media. Also we are now viewing the possibility that Israeli supporters may have had undue influence in the war decision. see
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/09/05/616439.html
In any case, Halliburton didn't start it.

3) Eisenhower was not addressing your concern, which is (I think) using political influence to win contracts at the expense of competitors. Yes the weaker companies do this. Mine did not, and we lost some contracts that way (my version). We did have a PAC and I contributed, because as explained to me, we don't make the rules, but if we don't play the game with the rules given, we loose. Often defense contracts go to states with the most political pull in congress (like pork) and to refuse to support your congressmen means you don't get to even have an input, so the pork goes elsewhere. That is a reflection on gov and politics, not the contractors. When our employee PAC was first started (1970's) the company had to convince its very ethical and patriotic employees to play the political game. Many, including WWII and other vets, were skeptical.

4) Defense contractor PAC's (and all corporate PAC's) are funded only by employees voluntarily, no company money allowed. Contrast that with unions, who fund their PAC's directly, with dues that are mandatory by law under union shop. Where is the fairness in that?

In all, I find your bias against defense contractors to still be puzzling.

- Dan Fernandes

also www.DanFernandes.com (Libertarian Candidate for CA Senate District 29)