And the contractors who get this work are paid on scales beyond anything traditional federal workers could dream of. A recent study by the Project on Government Oversight found that of the 35 job classifications it examined, contractor billing rates were on average 83 percent higher than what the government pays federal employees for the same type of work. The growth in contracting also has exacerbated another form of inequality: the increasing gap between metro Washington and other regions in the country, since so many of those high-paid contracting jobs are clustered around the capital.
The Professional Services Council, which represents federal contractors, argues that their pay is in line with what’s needed to attract top talent. “The private sector simply has a different economic model that it’s working with,” said the council’s Alan Chvotkin. “Are top executives making more than top people in government? Absolutely. They’re making more than the president of the United States.”
A lot more, actually. Contracting firms are allowed to bill up to $700,000 per year for executive compensation, well above the president’s annual $400,000 salary. The chief executives of contractors General Dynamics, Booz Allen and SAIC last year took home $13.7 million, $3.5 million and $5.2 million, respectively.
Occupy the Supreme Court
All of the above targets helped make income inequality in this country as extreme as it is today. The Supreme Court merits occupation because it helps keep things from getting any better.
If you thought that people at the very top of the ladder already had too much influence, just wait. The court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has brought us to new heights of big-money domination by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums to help elect candidates, knocking down what few constraints remained in a loophole-ridden campaign finance system. The ruling has spawned super PACs, groups that can collect unlimited contributions in support of candidates, as long as they are not “coordinating” with them. Karl Rove’s Crossroads super PAC is vowing to spend $240 million this cycle, the conservative Koch brothers are vowing to spend another $200 million, and Democrats and unions are scrambling to keep pace with their own groups.
“We have had other periods in time where there has been a lot of money in the political process,” said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, which advocates for open government. “But right now . . . you’ve got the very rich who have accumulated a lot of political power and clout, and this is a lot of their money [going into the super PACs], and it is continuing to tilt democracy in favor of the 1 percent.”
Did the court realize this could happen? In the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Really? “How could they not think ahead to the next step and what that would be like?” Boyle said. “It wasn’t a big leap to make. It’s baffling.”
Getting inside the court is harder than ever these days. But those big steps are perfect for cots and sleeping bags.
amacgillis@tnr.com
Alec MacGillis is a senior editor at the New Republic.
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
He will host an online chat on this piece Monday at 11a.m. Submit questions before or during the discussion.
What else to occupy? Send your suggested places, people or institutions to outlook@washpost.com, and we’ll publish the top ones next week.
Loading...
Comments