Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Sun Feb 12, 2012, 09:16 AM Feb 2012

Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120210/ACQUISITION03/202100304/1001

Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010
By SARAH CHACKO | Last Updated:February 10, 2012

Taxpayers contributed more than $3.3 billion to the pension programs of 18 of the biggest federal contractors in 2010, according to estimates by the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) watchdog group.

The government reimburses contractors for payments they make into their employee pension plans, regardless of whether the company's pension investment decisions earn or lose money, the group said in a report released Friday.

The CAGW estimates the government reimbursed Lockheed Martin Corp., the largest federal contractor, $988 million in 2010 for its pension payments. The figure for Raytheon was $667 million, and for Northrop Grumman Corp., $529 million.


"This can lead to moral hazard and higher federal spending, making it a challenge for all government agencies to meet their core mission and responsibilities, while at the same time using taxpayer money to subsidize investment decisions made by some of the most profitable corporations in the United States," the group said in the report.




unhappycamper comment: This is another reason why all the crap we buy is even more expensive (think of the pension payments as an 'added bonus').

FWIW, the price tag of the F-35 is creeping up to the $243 million dollars I've been saying for a long time:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/us-usa-budget-pentagon-idUSTRE81A0IF20120212

Exclusive: Pentagon budget eyes $178.8 bln for R&D, procurement

~snip~

The plan for the 2013 fiscal year, which begins on October 1, requests $9.17 billion for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, down slightly from $9.25 billion requested in fiscal 2012.

That includes $2.7 billion for ongoing development of the radar-evading supersonic jet, and $6.15 billion to pay for 29 jets, down from $6.33 billion for 31 jets in 2012.

6.15 billion dollars / 29 F-35s = 212,068.965.51 per copy

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010 (Original Post) unhappycamper Feb 2012 OP
Executive overcompensation or actual worker pensions? aquart Feb 2012 #1
It's the other one. unhappycamper Feb 2012 #2
I'd feel a lot safer with Medicare for All than with a whole Wing of F-35's. Scuba Feb 2012 #3
How long has this been going on? When did it asjr Feb 2012 #4
I don't trust a damn thing that comes from the CAGW. LiberalFighter Feb 2012 #5
My take: if CAGW sez x amount of dollars, it is less than it actually is. unhappycamper Feb 2012 #6
I would bet this is a feature of all Federal contracts quaker bill Feb 2012 #7
When did DU turn against worker benefits? AnnaLee Feb 2012 #8
Really? Against worker benefits? unhappycamper Feb 2012 #9

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
2. It's the other one.
Sun Feb 12, 2012, 09:37 AM
Feb 2012


http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120125/BENEFITS01/201250305/

While we are paying $3+ billion dollar pension bonuses for Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc. ad nauseum executives, Rep. Dennis Ross of Florida introduced a bill on 1.25.2012 "that would increase how much federal employees pay toward their retirement and steeply reduce pensions for new employees.".

You must admit they are consistent. All the time.

LiberalFighter

(50,504 posts)
5. I don't trust a damn thing that comes from the CAGW.
Sun Feb 12, 2012, 10:05 AM
Feb 2012

It's a right wing conservative scum bag organization. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
7. I would bet this is a feature of all Federal contracts
Sun Feb 12, 2012, 10:24 AM
Feb 2012

Hourly rates for staff are set by cost, cost includes salaries, benefits, and a margin for overhead. At least this was the case on every government contract I negotiated, and I don't do defense work.

The numbers are huge because these folks are huge contractors that provide a wide variety of very expensive products (weapon systems) that require a very well trained workforce to produce.

I would be good with spending massively less on defense, which would have the side effect of bringing this number down.

AnnaLee

(1,023 posts)
8. When did DU turn against worker benefits?
Sun Feb 12, 2012, 11:13 AM
Feb 2012

Yes, these are defense contractors but the workers are employed to provide a skill. No contract, no matter where it is written, employes labor without benfits and overhead unless the contractor is exploiting the workers.

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
9. Really? Against worker benefits?
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:52 AM
Feb 2012

Yes, it takes workers to build this crap.

Lockheed Martin (and most MIC) contractors spread parts and sub assembly work across as many states as they can. Why? So congresscritters in each of the states will continue to support spending 'defense' dollars for jobs. Granted, many if not most of these jobs pay good money. And transportation companies make bucks shuttling this crap around the country.

Some questions I ask myself:

What makes an F-22 worth $418 million dollars? What makes a C-17 worth $330 million dollars? What makes a Virginia-class submarine worth $5 billion dollars? What makes a Zumwalt-class destroyer worth almost $7 billion dollars? Why does the United States military spend more on war related stuff than the rest of the world combined? Why does the DoD make it so difficult for find out what this shit costs?

Keep in mind that after we buy this crap it takes megabucks to keep it going.

Winslow Wheeler frequently writes for the military rags.


Two examples from a Wheeler pdf: Cost Per Flying Hour

The B-2A stealth bomber’s CPFH cost has climbed in the last five years from $86,402 in 2006 to $135,182 in 2010. (That's just how much money it takes to fly these things for one lousy hour in addition to the upfront $2.4 billion dollar delivery cost. )


For 2009 – 2010, the F-22 is averaging over $54,000 per hour; the F-15C is averaging almost $35,000, a $19,000 difference, which will surely increase. When these things finally get off the ground again it will cost at least $54 grand an hour to fly this $418 million dollar wonder.


Why in the world would would we spend almost $7 billion dollars for a lousy destroyer? In comparison the Queen Mary II cost almost $900 million dollars. You can bet your bottom dollar that many more people are employed as a result the Queen Mary's activities than are for anything built buy the DoD. (p.s. - The USS Forrestal cost $189 million dollars to build.)


http://costsofwar.org/

http://costofwar.com/en/publications/


Edwin Starr had it correct.






Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Report: Pensions at top 1...