Somehow, you just can’t starve the beast
By Thoreau
OK, it isn’t exactly news that a revolving door between contractors and DoD leads to all sorts of corrupt contracting relationships. But the Economist details how that relationship even extends to food companies:
Tyson Foods claims that the Army Centre of Excellence, Subsistence (ACES), an army agency in Fort Lee, Virginia, tends to award the vast majority of food-supply contracts to companies which have retired military personnel in charge of relations with the American army. It also says that the way in which ACES selects not just foods but particular brands is inappropriate. While soldiers might well prefer Heinz ketchup and Cheerios cereal, they can hardly be fussy about labels when it comes to pieces of raw chicken.
At Sara Lee, for instance, Paul Simmons, an ex-army officer, is in charge of food sales to the armed forces. He negotiates with David Staples, a top procurement official at ACES, who used to work at Sara Lee’s sausage subsidiary. Mr Staples’s predecessor at ACES was Emily Prior, who was subsequently hired by Quantum Foods, a meatpacking firm in Illinois that provides most of the beef for American troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Ms Prior also represents Perdue, a poultry company that supplies much of the chicken for troops in Iraq. “Government officials frequently switch to a job in the private industry and vice versa,” says Jon Harris, a spokesman for Sara Lee. So far, there seems to be no damage to the food companies as a result of the investigation. “It’s not something I think about when looking at the stock,” says a retailing analyst in New York. That could change as the probe continues.
One thing that this drives home is just how deep the tentacles of a large military-industrial complex reach. I’m sure that Sara Lee, Perdue, et. al. get most of their revenue from selling to clients other than DoD. Nonetheless, on a profit per unit basis these are probably very profitable contracts for the food companies, because they can sell essentially the same product (perhaps packaged or shipped differently, whatever) at a price dictated by cronyism rather than competition. The company as a whole might not care terribly much about the federal contracts (which are probably still a small fraction of total revenue) but the individual managers responsible for those disproportionately profitable contracts have a HUGE stake in keeping Uncle Sam happy so they can remain the Most Profitable Account Executive Of The Year, and enjoy the perks of that distinction.
It also occurs to me that when so many sectors of the economy have a stake in any sort of federal project that there are probably ways for influence to run in the other direction. No, I’m not about to shed any crocodile tears for a defense contractor who has to bow to some idiotic bureaucracy in order to keep the fat contracts rolling, but I do wonder how healthy it is for our society when the tentacles of the military run to so many sectors.
Comment by Bonnie —
October 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Your site has won a Blog of the Day Award (BOTDA)
Award Code
Thank you,
famous quotes
Comment by roger —
October 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am
The unhealthiness is all over the place. Today, for instance, it was revealed in the Washington Post that the State Department, which so loves its military contractor, Blackwater, that apparently nothing is too good for those godly mercenaries, twisted justice by guaranteeing immunity to the Blackwater guards who suffered such stress after killing 17 Iraqis and wounding twenty others in Nisoor square. Besides which, the Justice Department has apparently decided to swallow forever the case of Andrew Moonen, the Blackwater guard who murdered an Iraqi man, Raneem Khalif, for grins last Christmas.
An elite that holds itself unaccountable even for murder is not a healthy elite. It is a sick elite. It is a rotten elite. It needs to be overturned.
Comment by Brian —
October 30, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
roger-such distemperate words.
I don’t think the elite can be overturned. I think Chalmers Johnston is right-the rot is endemic, systemic, and incurable. To quote Ioz, “The Only Solution is Dissolution.” Even if localized elites in say, the Holy Republic of Alabama, run a pretty nasty place, said Holy Republic will not have the funds to operate 700 military bases around the world. Life will be nastier for us, but do we not deserve it?
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
October 30, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114505.html
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
“Tyson Foods claims that the Army Centre of Excellence, Subsistence (ACES), an army agency in Fort Lee, Virginia,”
As if there would conceivably be such a thing in America. Naturally, there is no such agency.
It is, of course, the Army Center of Excellence.
It’s all very well to use different spelling for common nouns and words, but you can’t change proper nouns, damnit. It’s a name: it’s not subjective to dialectical spelling changes in formal reporting.
I say this given the never-ending sensitivity of British friends and strangers, who commonly have fits if they see an American dare refer to, say, the “Labor Party.” But it’s a perfectly valid point.
Comment by Timothy —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
What concerns me, Dave, is that you won’t give up patents for a full examination of physics pedagogy. Clearly you don’t really place any importance on physics pedagogy or you’d be working on it. I am left to conclude that, all of your protestations to the contrary aside, you are a firm advocate for Big Lesson Plan.
Comment by Minion of URKOBOLD —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
WTF, Dave W?
congratulating a friend is all of a sudden a “gotcha”?
You’re “Eddie”, aren’t you?
Comment by Karen —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
What I love about this is that the name tells you exactly nothing about what ACES does. What is so wrong with calling it “Food?” Any organization that thinks “Army Center of Excellence” should be the name of anything should be dissolved immediately.
That said, this actual story is revolting. I’m prohibited as a lawyer from leaving my job and immediately turning around and representing clients before my agency. Thus, if I went into private practice by the time I could use my experise at the agency, it’s unlikely anyone I know would still be in a position to work with me. That’s not the case here. These guys waltz back and forth between government and their businesses like Fred and Ginger across a set. WIth no penalty. GAG.
Comment by kid bitzer —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
it’ premature to declare the beast unstarveable.
once there’s a democrat in the white house, you’ll be amazed at the fiscal discipline our nation’s political elites are capable of.
then we’ll have dozens more republican-sponsored amendments for a balanced budget, dozens more tirades about wasteful democratic spending, and dozens more ways to prevent the next president from undoing the damage this one did.
just wait! once it’s a democratic beast, they’ll find a way to starve it!
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Fortunately that professor emeritus d00d steeped in on that thd and gave T. the facts of (academic) life. Otherwise I might have had to do just as you say!
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Not all rhetorical tension is a “gotcha.” That is more for the reader to judge on a case by case basis. I remember that Fyo once said I was always looking for the “gotcha,” but really I am not.
It is always tough to know how far to let friends get out there politically before you have to give them up as friends. I don’t have a pat answer for that thorny issue.
I do know that if I was drinking in Reno, then I would want my bouncer to be able to do crowd control and handle himself in a fistfight, but I would probably not want him to be armed.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
It is always tough to know how far to let friends get out there politically before you have to give them up as friends. I don’t have a pat answer for that thorny issue.
Write me off, Dave. I’m too far out there politically to be your friend. Walk away from me and bid adieu.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
kid bitzer-
I hope you are right. I think you might be, but I’m not convinced.
Comment by Timothy —
October 30, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Fortunately that professor emeritus d00d steeped in on that thd and gave T. the facts of (academic) life. Otherwise I might have had to do just as you say!
Regardless of who else sees fit to cover an issue, if you really care about it you have a duty to give up whatever you’re doing and get on it. Clearly, not quitting the patents game and going into physics pedagogy research indicates that you really don’t care about how well our children are educated in physics. Why won’t you just admit that you’re really only interested in advancing the cause of Big Boson? I think I can really help you, D., if only you’ll listen.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
October 30, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Oh, T. We can never be friends. We both know that. I think, deep down, we have both always known that. Our relationship, such as it is, is Hegelian and analytical. It is, by nature, oppositional and exists only in the realm of the head and not that of the heart.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 30, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Where “starve” just might possibly be a balanced budget…
Comment by Thoreau —
October 30, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Karen-
FWIW, I’m thinking of following the Army’s lead and naming my research group “The Center For Awesomeness in Academia.” Why not? Isn’t my research awesome? Well, then, clearly it’s an accurate title!
I’m also thinking of naming my class “A Class on Really Important Stuff.” I mean, it IS important stuff, so why not use that name? Huh?
Comment by Mona —
October 30, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Spot on. And I am SO SICK of anti-libertarian bloviators who do not get that we are nor corporatists, and that we especially are opposed to the military-industrial complex.
Comment by anti-libertarian bloviator —
October 30, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Mona and Thoreau,
I wish you guys would say something against the military-industrial complex in this thread so I could know that you aren’t just corporatists.
Comment by Karen —
October 30, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Well, Dr. T, to really keep with the army you’d have to throw in a bunch more superlatives, like “The Academic Center for Amazing Supercolassal Humongeous Awesome Perfection.” It would be especially great if you could get it to spell out a word, like “PERFECT” or “WOWNESS” or something. I’m too sleepy and drugged up on flu medication — they really mean the part about ‘not operating heavy machinery’ when you take this stuff — to come up with the acronym yet. I’ll work on it and get back to you. For a consultant fee, of course.
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
“Any organization that thinks ‘Army Center of Excellence’
should be the name of anything should be dissolved immediately.”
They’ve also decreed in recent years that the word “soldier” must always be capitalized as “Soldier.”
This is, of course, to keep up with the Navy having decreed the same damn thing about “Sailor.”
This because the Air Force had “Airman,” which is legitimately capitalized as a rank, and which has never been a common noun.
Their crimes against the English language are not the least of their sins!
Just another snafu.
Comment by Jean —
October 30, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
The Centre for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence…
Comment by ajay —
October 31, 2007 @ 6:46 am
They’ve also decreed in recent years that the word “soldier” must always be capitalized as “Soldier.”
Because that’s the way it is in the original German.
Comment by Keifus —
October 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
What I love about this is that the name tells you exactly nothing about what ACES does. What is so wrong with calling it “Food?” Any organization that thinks “Army Center of Excellence” should be the name of anything should be dissolved immediately
The Army has many centers of excellence in the research fields. They are collaborations between teh DoD and outside research institutions, at least as I’ve encountered them. I’ve no idea if ACES is teh same animal, but that was my first thought.
I’m pissed that Jean beat me to the punch.
Comment by Kevin Carson —
November 6, 2007 @ 4:55 am
The contracts may be a small part of total corporate revenue, but a much larger fraction of idle capacity. In a state capitalist economy with high levels of overaccumulation, state consumption of output may make the difference in solvency by taking up a sufficient amount of slack productive capacity, and thereby enabling an overbuilt corporation to lower unit costs.
This argument originally came from David Horowitz, believe it or not, in his pre-neocon days.