Whether it's people like Peter Orszag or the countless generals who move out of government and into high paying defense contractor jobs, this is a problem. It also goes a long way into explaining the defense spending as well as the easy regulation of industry. As The Atlantic notes, these stories don't even resonate with The Washington Post, who are very much a part of the problem and the excuse-making. Maybe the Post sees this as good for the system but beyond the beltway it's not as clear.
Great article in the Boston Globe on the link between defense contractors and retiring generals. The money is obviously fantastic but what about their allegiance to the country or is selling to the highest bidder the only thing that matters? Isn't this what we would consider corruption if it happened elsewhere?
From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.
In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent.
And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have to sell — Martin’s firm is called The Four Star Group, for example. The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill — where former lawmakers and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms — is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.
