United Technologies

=<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/talkies-october-10-2018/" style="">https://kpfa.org/episode/talkies-october-10-2018/</a>napalm made in so bay city? --> redwood city flats
h bruce franklin crash crs forever war<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/merger-mania-the-military-industrial-complex-is-on-steroids/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/merger-mania-the-military-industrial-complex-is-on-steroids/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">hartung cmn dreams</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>When, in his <a href="https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Eisenhower+Farewell+Address&qpvt=Eisenhower+Farewell+Address&view=detail&mid=6E3CB53C830D2028A2676E3CB53C830D2028A267&&FORM=VRDGAR" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">farewell address</a> in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the “unwarranted influence” wielded by the “military-industrial complex,” he could never have dreamed of an arms-making corporation of the size and political clout of Lockheed Martin. In a good year, it now receives up to <a href="https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/reports.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">$50 billion</a> in government contracts, a sum larger than the operating <a href="https://www.state.gov/fy-2020-congressional-budget-justification-department-of-state-foreign-operations-and-related-programs/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">budget</a> of the State Department. And now it’s about to have company.</div><div class="p1_30" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Raytheon, already one of the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-9-biggest-defense-contractors-in-america-2016-5/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">top five</a> U.S. defense contractors, is planning to <a href="https://www.ctpost.com/business/danhaar/article/Dan-Haar-UTC-Raytheon-merger-could-cost-CT-its-13963643.php" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">merge</a> with United Technologies. That company is a major contractor in its own right, producing, among other things, the <a href="https://www.pw.utc.com/products-and-services/products/military-engines/f135" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">engine</a> for the F-35 combat aircraft, the <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/the-f-35-fighter-jet-will-cost-1-5-trillion-its-time-for-new-priorities/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">most expensive</a> Pentagon weapons program ever. The <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/06/10/731225619/raytheon-and-united-technologies-merge-to-create-a-new-aerospace-giant" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">new firm</a> will be second only to Lockheed Martin when it comes to consuming your tax dollars — and it may end up even more powerful politically, thanks to President Trump’s fondness for <a href="https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176521/tomgram%3A_smithberger_and_hartung%2C_the_pentagon%27s_revolving_door_spins_faster/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">hiring</a> arms industry executives to run the national security state.<div class="p2_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><div class="alt_ad_block story-page-in-content-graph-2" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="teadsNative" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></div>Just as Boeing <a href="https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176521/tomgram%3A_smithberger_and_hartung%2C_the_pentagon%27s_revolving_door_spins_faster" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">benefited</a> from its former Senior Vice President Patrick Shanahan’s stint as acting secretary of defense, so Raytheon is likely to cash in on the <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/mike-esper-defense-secretary-donald-trump-1445342" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">nomination</a> of its former top lobbyist, Mike Esper, as his successor. Esper’s elevation comes shortly after another former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, left the State Department amid <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/us/politics/democrats-charles-faulkner-arms-sales.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">charges</a> that he had improperly influenced decisions to sell Raytheon-produced guided bombs to Saudi Arabia for its brutal <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/middleeast/saudi-yemen-airstrikes-civilians.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">air war</a> in Yemen. John Rood, third-in-charge at the Pentagon, has<a href="https://dod.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1418413/john-c-rood/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;"> worked</a> for both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, while Ryan McCarthy, Mike Esper’s <a href="https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/06/18/former-ranger-likely-to-become-acting-army-secretary-again/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">replacement</a> as secretary of the Army, worked for Lockheed on the F-35, which the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has <a href="https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-may-never-be-ready-for-combat/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">determined</a> may never be ready for combat.<div class="p3_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />And so it goes. There was a time when Donald Trump was enamored of “his” <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-hires-a-third-general-raising-concerns-about-heavy-military-influence/2016/12/07/a6273fbc-bca0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.6c8666b4eb9b" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">generals</a> — Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a former <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313196-mattis-to-divest-stock-resign-from-board-of-general-dynamics-under" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">board member</a> of the weapons-maker General Dynamics), National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. Now, he seems to have a crush on personnel from the industrial side of the military-industrial complex.<div class="p4_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />As POGO’s research has <a href="https://www.pogo.org/report/2018/11/brass-parachutes/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">demonstrated</a>, the infamous “revolving door” that deposits defense executives like Esper in top national security posts swings both ways. The group estimates that, in 2018 alone, 645 senior government officials — mostly from the Pentagon, the uniformed military, and Capitol Hill — went to work as executives, consultants, or board members of one of the top 20 defense contractors.Fifty years ago, Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire identified the problem when he <a href="https://www.republicreport.org/2012/four-decades-ago-senator-warned-revolving-door-militaryindustrial-complex/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">noted</a> that:<div class="p6_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />“the movement of high ranking military officers into jobs with defense contractors and the reverse movement of top executives in major defense contractors into high Pentagon jobs is solid evidence of the military-industrial complex in operation. It is a real threat to the public interest because it increases the chances of abuse… How hard a bargain will officers involved in procurement planning or specifications drive when they are one or two years away from retirement and have the example to look at of over 2,000 fellow officers doing well on the outside after retirement?”<div class="p7_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />In other words, that revolving door and the problems that go with it are anything but new. Right now, however, it seems to be spinning faster than ever — and mergers like the Raytheon-United Technologies one are only likely to feed the phenomenon.<div class="p8_30" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />The Last Suppercarrier AC bs scam===Scathing reports have once again spotlighted the massive cost and delays surrounding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a jet designed for multiple branches of the military that has been dubbed the single most expensive weapons program in history. Even as criticism has rained down upon them, though, the four main contractors on the project have made sure campaign funds flow to lawmakers who are instrumental in keeping government payments coming for the jet. And all four contractors upped the ante last year with record contributions.<a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-364" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One of the recent reports</a>, from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, is critical of engine failures and software glitches that have caused delays in manufacturing and testing. Notably, an <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/f-35-has-more-engine-troubles-its-been-through-worse-1901865?ft=3aj78&utm_medium=Apr_30_2015_0401_201096&utm_source=TailoredMail&utm_term=%20Two+More+Reports+Slam+The+F-35&utm_campaign=Apr_30_2015_0401" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">engine fire last summer grounded the entire fleet</a>, some of which were expected to enter active service by the end of this year. The engine is designed by Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000209&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United </a><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000209&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Technologies</a> — a company that also took fire in a separate report from the Department of Defense Inspector General this month, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/f-35-engines-from-united-technologies-called-unreliable-by-gao" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">which mentioned more than 60 breaches in the company’s compliance with Pentagon requirements and policies.</a>F-35 procurement is expected to cost nearly $400 billion, according to the GAO report, and the Pentagon’s budget for it is projected to rise from $8.4 billion in 2015 to $12 billion in 2018.A <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/12/buying-the-joint-strike-fighter-caucus/" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2011 OpenSecrets blog report</a> linked members of a then-new group of F-35 enthusiasts on Capitol Hill — the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus — to the contractors. But a new analysis of 2014 data shows that some of the top recipients from the contractors are powerful legislators: party leaders and chairs or ranking members of influential committees and subcommittees.
Giving from the contractors typically favors Republican candidates by large margins. In the case of Lockheed, for instance, Republican support generally hovers at 60 percent of its total giving (2008 and 2010 were two recent exceptions to the rule, but, as seen in the chart above, Republicans are once again the favored party).All together, United Technologies,<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000104&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Lockheed Martin</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000170" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Northrop Grumman</a>, and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000583&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">BAE Systems</a> donate millions of dollars every couple of years to lawmakers in the Capitol. Following slightly differing time frames, their individual giving has grown enormously since the JSF program started in 1997.  The main contractor, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman led the pack in 2014, each contributing $4.1 million to campaigns. UT spent $2.1 million, and BAE gave $1.4 million. For all four, 2014 was a record year.At the top of their recipients list, however, are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle with powerful spots in important committees. The House Armed Services Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and Senate Appropriations Committees were the biggest targets of all of the companies; lawmakers in each received $1.7 million, $1.3 million, and $658,499, respectively.Sen. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00004981&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Dick Durbin</a> (D-Ill.) is the only lawmaker in the top five of each company. Now the Senate minority party’s No. 2, and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Durbin in 2014 took $62,000 from Northrop Grumman, $54,000 from UT, $29,600 from Lockheed, and $29,299 from BAE.Senate Majority Leader <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003389&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Mitch McConnell</a> (R-Ky.) showed up in the top five of two of the contractors — $27,400 from Lockheed, $23,500 from BAE — as did Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003328&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Thad Cochran</a> (R-Miss.) — $14,000 from BAE, and $11,500 from UT.Members of the House appropriations and Armed Services Committees were up there as well — often taking in more than the lawmakers in the Senate.Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006052&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Mac Thornberry</a> (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, received $75,900 from Lockheed, and $29,000 from Northrop Grumman. The top Democrat in the Committee, Washington Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007833&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Adam Smith</a> took in $28,200 from Northrop Grumman. Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00024842&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Joe Courtney</a> (D-Conn.), the ranking member of a subcommittee in Armed Services took in $11,500 from UT. Rep.<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00029258&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Duncan Hunter</a> (R-Calif.), just a member of the Committee, got $11,500. Hunter is also the son of former House Armed Services Chairman, former Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Calif.).In Appropriations, several subcommittee chairs make a showing in the companies’ top fives as well. Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00008799&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kay Granger</a> (R-Texas) the chairwoman for the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee and vice-chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee received $73,350 from Lockheed (Granger also lists herself as co-chair of the JSF caucus on her website with a link to the 2011 press release announcing the caucus). The ranking New Jersey lawmaker on the panel, Republican Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000684&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Rodney Frelinghuysen</a>, saw $73,350 from Lockheed (Frelinghuysen is also the chairman of the Homeland Security and Defense Committee). Rep. <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00012739&cycle=2014" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Ander Crenshaw</a> (R-Fla.) took in $35,700 from Northrop Grumman, and $13,600 from BAE.