Federal procurement reports for fiscal years 2006-2010 reveal that…
… my goodness, but that sounds dreadfully dry, doesn’t it? It’s so hard to zip up a sentence that begins with the words “federal procurement reports.” Let’s try again:
A small number of corporations are raking in a whole lot of government cash. See for yourself:
As I noted Monday, the top 5 federal contractors (all weapons manufacturers) received about 1 in 5 contracting dollars from the federal government in 2010. As the graph shows, that wasn’t a fluke: the share taken by the top 5 contractors remained at about 20% from 2006 through 2010.
If the 45 next-highest recipients of contracting cash had received government funds in proportion to the top 5, then the top 50 contractors would have received a mathematically impossible 200% of all federal contracting dollars. The actual share raked in by the top 50 big-buck contractors was about 45% from 2006 to 2010, representing a sharp decrease in funds received. Remember that the 45% share for the top 50 includes the 20% share for the top 5: the 45 next-biggest contract recipients obtained only 25% of contract dollars.
Don’t shed a tear for the top 50, though; consider the next 50 down the list. All together, the top 100 contractors raked in about 55% of all federal contracting dollars from 2006-2010. But remembering that this 55% figure for the top 100 includes the 45% share for the top 50, that means that contractors #51 through #100 altogether only obtained 10% of contract dollars, a deceleration of about 80% from the rate of the top 50.
If we look at the trend in greater detail, graphing the share of all federal contracting dollars for each of the Top 100 contractors, the concentration of contracting dollars at the top of the list becomes even more clear:
Don’t feel too sorry for “little” #100, the Aecom Technology Corporation. It got a whopping $641.7 million contract in 2010. We’re talking about big dollars here, which is what makes the share grabbed by #1 Lockheed Martin even more staggering. The contractors further down the list, from #101 on down, each obtained a decreasingly small share of government contracts.
The bottom line: a surprisingly small number of corporations are grabbing most of the U.S. government’s contracts. In its spending choices, the federal government is acting to redistribute wealth, concentrating it in the hands of already huge (and not very friendly) corporations.
Hey, you wanna see inequality? i’ll show ya inequality!
http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2011/05/going-bananas.html#comments
a few highlights: “from 1969 to 2008 essentially all income growth in the U.S. went to the top 10% of earners” with lots of chart data to support the claim.
and, since 2008, wonderful news like:
“the level of inequality is higher than any other western nation, higher even than Russia and comparable with China and Mexico.”
and (from the comments section to the above article):
Sanford’s Brad Hintz Explains Why There Will Never Be Any Justice In America
From a note just released by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Brad Hintz:
“Goldman Sachs wont face criminal precaution related to sales of mortgage linked securities because such a move could threaten the US financial system.”
Really, that’s all you need to know.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sanfords-brad-hintz-explains-why-there-will-never-be-any-justice-america?
now THAT’S inequality!
“…The bottom line: a surprisingly small ( number of [sic] ) corporations are grabbing most of the U.S. government’s contracts. In its spending choices, the federal government is acting to redistribute wealth, concentrating it in the hands of already huge (and not very friendly) corporations….”
Let’s change a few key words in the section above, and see what we get:
“…The bottom line: a surprisingly small number of taxpayers are paying most of the U.S. government’s revenues. In its taxing choices, the federal government is acting to redistribute wealth, concentrating it in the hands of already huge (and not very friendly) numbers of people who take more from the country than they give…”
Thanks for pointing out the missing word.
I’d be more sympathetic to that line, BananaPeelRepublic, if huge amounts of the government’s expenditures were not dedicated to the maintenance and protection of wealth and property. I’d also be more sympathetic if corporations like Bank of America, some of the most wealthy entities in the country, actually paid their income taxes.
Besides, what you’re referring to would be dispersion of wealth, not concentration of it.
I believe Jim, that Defense is a legitimate role of the Federal government, where is the authorization for welfare? Besides the progressive interpretation of the “General Welfare” clause, which was never interpreted that way until after the turn of the century. Wilson and House used the Social Gospel to pervert the Constitution, and Liberals, who would have rioted if the same actions had been taken in the name of a religion, followed the Godless church of the Government to the altar of sacrifice, as long as the Rich were the ones to have their necks cut.
What you write is not true. The “progressive interpretation” (which is that when the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to provide for the General Welfare, it means that) goes all the way straight back to the founding fathers. That’s why it’s called the Hamiltonian position, for Alexander Hamilton.
When was the last time a rich man had his neck cut in this country on a governmental sacrificial altar? I mean that literally, because for purposes of context we all really ought to consider the times and places that has been done in the past.
The answer, of course, is that such a thing is NOT happening in this country, Jon. To the contrary: the share of all income brought in by the top 1% over the past generation has gone up. The share of all wealth amassed by the top 1% over the past generation has gone up. Those are actual facts, unlike the slitty-neck bits you proffer.
What I have a hard time with Jim is the idea that anyone has a right to the earnings of another just because they are members of the same society. Where does the Constitution give confiscatory power over others property? Don’t tell me the Sixteenth amendment that was the workings of the Progressive lobby. I also understand that there needs to be a balance in all things. The need of others may be a moral issue but not one for the Government to resolve. But the left has become more and shrill in its Marxist leanings. Marx’s critique of the capitalist system is sharp. However, results of the implementation of Communism have always been a disaster.
But the left has become more shrill in its Marxist leanings? That’s rhetoric, Jon, and it’s not borne out. To start out with, the American left is not Marxist. You want to find real Marxists? Check out the left in Europe, in Africa, in South America. There are some real Marxists there that would make the American left look like George Will.
Also look at American history if you want to see a trend: since 1900, there has been a trend toward less and less “shrill” Marxist expression in America. In America in the late 1800s through the 1930s, there were labor riots and there was an open socialist movement in this country. From then through the 1970s, strikes were commonplace (while America prospered, mind you). Go find some statistics on union membership and union activity over the last forty years and tell me what the trend is. How many strikes have there been from 2005-2010? How does that compare to the number of strikes from 1975-1980? From 1935-1940? The data won’t show a surge of “shrill” Marxist activity in recent years.
Also tell me what has happened from the 1930s through the 1970s to now to tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. How is that a surge of the left? American workers are working harder than ever, at greater levels of productivity, and they’re getting paid less for it than before. About the only way that’s showing a surge of Marxism in America is that it’s the pattern of “alienation of labor” that Marx predicted.
I will never defend “communist” regimes, and I will never mistake them for Marxist or for democratic socialism. Finally, go look at OECD statistics on quality of life (life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy and so on) in countries with democratic socialist systems of government and compare them to the quality of life in the United States.
What you say does not match what’s happened in this country or the actual pattern of variation cross-nationally.
You haven’t been wathing the Communists calling for a destruction of the banking system by witholding home loan payments and causing a total collapse? That’s pretty shrill!
But I wonder Jim, are you equally outraged by the Federal Reserve? The money taken by contractors is chicken feed next to the debt payment we make on fiat money “loaned” by the federal Reserve.
“Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”
Baron M.A. Rothschild
That word “concentrating”: I don’t think it means what you think it means. The government is not successfully redistributing wealth despite some gestures in that direction. Wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of the rich. You know, the ones who take more out of the economy than they put in. It’s pretty useless to tax the poor; they just end up more desperate for assistance.
If the total wealth of the entire country is represented by “T”, and the total wealth held by “wealthy” people (obviously an arbitrary definition, but goes along with your use of terms such as “whopping”) is T1 then we can define the total wealth of the “poor” people in the country by T2.
So T = T1 + T2. If T1 >> T2 then we would say in qualitative terms that wealth is concentrated in the group that holds T1.
If we set the tax rate such that an amount R = 0.6*T1, then the revenue raised is 60% of the wealth held by the T1 group. So if in the extreme case that all of the tax revenue R was given to the T2 group of people, then the wealth of T2 > T1. But T2 + T1 still = T. So the wealth moves from the former T1 to the former T2 group, and this means that the concentration of wealth in the group that was T2 has increased. And it is not earned wealth. If you are trying to argue that the wealth is now concentrated in a group which is larger in number, then same should be said for the T1 group. The number of millionaires in the U.S. has increased, except for 2008, where it sharply decreased. So it would be silly to argue that because the group of millionaires has grown larger, that their wealth has been “dispersed”. Same for the lower income groups. If their incomes have not risen fast enough to keep pace with inflation, so they have a net loss in buying power, that is also partially because of government practices that have not stopped inflation, nor should they be that involved.
To Hendrix: What kind of blather are you talking about, where you state that the rich take more out of the economy than they put in? Who is paying the salaries of most people, other poor people or more wealthy people who hire folks for jobs to do work?
Nobody in this country is guaranteed an existence that is comfortable. If they wish to compare themselves in poverty, they should visit some of the countries I’ve been to, then you’ll see people in desperate need. When we talk about our government competing with private companies to offer free wifi and subsidized cell phones they are certainly not starving. The “evil rich people” line is just getting too played.
They have been infected with the Karl Marx disease, envy! Class warfare is the way for people to steal what is not theirs and feel good about it at the same time. That simple.
Getting too far off the main topic, but your point has merit. I prefer to count a lot of them as just lazy. Ya ever notice how so many liberal thinkers today, like our illustrious Congressman Weiner-pants are big social media users, like Twitter? They seem to be the majority that have so much free time on their hands. Hard working people are too busy making a living or doing things with their family to tweet that much.
And then they wonder why they don’t get ahead in the world. Trying to punish successful people and enterprises just amazes me. But let’s stick up for all the poor people who have only turned to stealing because of how much society “represses” them. I heard all this in the sixties. (yes, I’m that old)
Your contention regarding Anthony Weiner is such a strong personal accusation, and regarding activity that can be measured, that it merits a longer response, which it will get in just a bit.
See my response to your “longer” post.
But when I said this: “…Hard working people are too busy making a living …”
I think “hard working people” means I wasn’t talking about most of the people in Congress, on both sides.
BTW, the number of bills someone introduces doesn’t really mean they’ve done anything. Most of these are actually written for them by others on their staff. And of course, you really knew that and were just being obtuse. And generally wrong.