The folks in Washington D.C. need not worry about defense industry jobs, they need to start worrying about their own jobs.  The real failure is that there is no budget.  The lack of bi-partisan cooperation on something as basic as paying the bills is absolutely unforgivable.  If any of us in the defense industry or military performed our jobs and carried out our responsibilities to the American taxpayers in such a sorry manner we would be fired.  If our representatives can't do their jobs, earn the paycheck we are giving them, then it's time for all of them to go.  I'm a strong supporter of one political party and I will vote this November, but I will not continue to support anyone who has failed to provide us the leadership we deserve.  Sometimes that leadership means working will all the folks around us just like the rest of us have to do every day. 

I find objectionable Deputy Assistant Secretary Lambert's statement that, in contrast to his "fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer and the warfighter," Defense companies' fiduciary responsibility "is to the shareholder." Our companies, in fact, put the warfighter and taxpayer stakeholders well ahead of our own shareholders, all for the sake of the defense of the Nation.

To that point, Mr. Lambert's point-of-view belies a misunderstanding of why companies exist and how they operate. Introductory economics classes teach that "the objective of the entrepreneur is to maximize profit." The reality is that, on average, private companies only appear to behave that way. In reality, our shared objective is to provide Defense goods and services valued by our consumers, the warfighters. To fulfill our objective, our markets and owners constrain us to produce Defense products affordably for the taxpayers and profitably for our shareholders. If we were slavish to Mr. Lambert's notion that enriching our shareholders dominates our responsibilities, the Defense companies would sell recreational drugs.

But Mr. Lambert also fails to appreciate the deep mission commitment of Defense companies and their employees. We, too, are partners in the Defense of our homes, our citizens, our forces and our Nation. We dedicate our lives and careers to that mission. Quite a few of us eschew more lucrative careers for the sake of that personal mission commitment. Increasing numbers of us now go to combat areas to provide advanced technological support to the engaged forward forces. Many of us currently and formerly served in the armed forces, and we feel compelled to aid our brothers and sisters in harm's way.

And, yes, Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, despite how well our executives manage the Defense companies for the shareholders, they generally receive an acceptable but less-than-stellar return on their capital invested in our firms.

Mr. Secretary, we know you and your superiors have impossible choices and vastly insufficient resources. But please don't frame our responsibilities so narrowly to only our shareholders. The US Defense industry is every bit as committed as you are to the warfighter and the taxpayer, and we put them ahead of our shareholders and ourselves.

Dear Mr Grange,

Whilst your company undoubtedly has members with an interest in supporting the military, please look at the bottom line of the companies account.  Look at their prospectus.  Look at the way the share price moves when an announcement is made of a new project, a progress payment, an approval for the next level, an increase in volumes consumed - then look at what the Senior Executive is paid compared to the worker on the floor, and why - and tell me the executive is not committed to obtaining a return as either money or increased value of shares for their shareholders. 

If the Senior Executive are not they will not be in their position for long.

As war like activities decrease the demand for the goods that support these activitivies should also fall - to the cynical that's why war is good for the economy and the end of war often brings an economic slowdown or depression (Napolion war - post napoleinic depression in europe, WWI led into the Great Depression, WWII in europe [Europe was assisted by a strong US economy, at that time - the US joined the war late, and was a lender, not a borrower], Britain only recently finished paying of its WWII debt to the US).  Note: China is now a major lender for funding recent US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan.

Companies who build then come into their own during reconstruction, after war.  Nations who 'lose' wars often win the peace (Japan, Germany) as a result of sustained economic activity, plus little spending on their own defence force for a while.  The victors see it as in their own interest to stabilize the losers situation, to prevent anarchy or a rise of the threat, again (WWII, present day). WWI and the resultant WWII was an example of why this is necessary.

The leading societies exercising influence over vast areas also change over time (e.g. Greeks, Romans, Portugeese, Dutch, Japanese, French, British, USSR), so again the US must tread carefully.

Therefore a contraction in spending on new military hardware and R and D at this time, by the US, would appear prudent, given the atronomical size of the debt accrued during recent wars, to permit the US to remain a balancing force on the world stage.

Best Regards

Chris Eastaughffe
Australia