Let a thousand voices sing. The good Dr.’s points are fine for a pre-IT world – but the educated citizen can find out all they want now days via the intertubes. After awhile, those retired officers that only seem to chirp up during election cycles and then sound like a talking-point on loop lose their credibility. The marketplace of ideas can be efficient like that

The modern version of this came with retired Admiral William Crowe, who stood next to then Gov. Clinton in the middle of the the ’92 election and gave him the top cover he needed at the right point – got an appt. at the Court of St. James as a thanks and we were off to the races. Say what you want about the politics of it – and you know me and USNI, I would prefer if you didn’t – but at least ADM Crowe was a class act about it all. I don’t think you can say that about much of what we have seen this decade.

The key is for others to speak up in response as much as needed – and for other retired officers to counter the excess and call their peers to account. There was a lot of credibility lost in the last election – I think the excess will take care of itself as we go forward. The best antidote for speech you think is wrong is more speech; just be an adult about it.

There is also a line of thought that not all opinion is political – though it may go against a politician’s opinion.

To wander into my point – I will, ahem, form up with FOD on this one subject as I read Dr. Snider’s ‘lil paper as a discussion of a “Food Trough” problem; but I don’t think some pre-fall of the Berlin Wall central registry idea is the solution. Don’t make people qualify to keep their 1st Amendment rights; they earned it.

Now, a cooling off period of say 5 years after retirement for all GOFO or SES from working for any privately or publicly held company or subsidiary that conducts more than $500 million annually, adjusted yearly for inflation, with the DoD …. now were talking about sump’n!




Posted by CDRSalamander in Uncategorized


You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Now, a cooling off period of say 5 years after retirement for all GOFO or SES from working for any privately or publicly held company or subsidiary that conducts more than $500 million annually, adjusted yearly for inflation, with the DoD …. now were talking about sump’n!”

    So, the Government will, without cause or due process, deprive a GOFO/SES of a lucrative livelihood for 60 months, until he is far less valuable (and his salary commensurately lower) because his knowledge is no longer current? And that is not somehow violating his rights? And, was this a condition of his commission thirty-some years ago, or are you springing this restriction on him ex post facto?

  • Eagle1

    Reasonable limits imposed by contract on certain types of future employment have long been upheld by courts. The key would be to make sure the flags and SESs acknowledge such a limitation as a prerequisite when accepting their new ranks.

    Now, what do you suggest doing about the former Congress people who get involved in lobbying their former “co-peoples’ servants?” Same rules?

    Or what about former flags who become Congress persons and may end up receiving campaign funds to push an agenda beneficial to one of their constituents defense-related employers?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Reasonable limits imposed by contract on certain types of future employment have long been upheld by courts.”

    The term “reasonable limits” is the sticking point. It would take a pretty thick rug to consider a blanket prohibition against such employment to be “reasonable” when laws already exist to restrict conflict of interest inside and out of the armed forces. And for good reason.

  • Byron

    URR: Shipbuilding mess. Aquisition mess. Point made. I agree with ‘Mander…he’s a fairly smart amphibian ;)

  • http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com CDRSalamander

    URR – which Constitution are you reading? Right?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Well, gents, employment restrictions on Government contracts must be justified (sometimes to a painful degree) in order to get them through Federal anti-discrimination rules. Title 41 specifies restrictions on moving from a government position where one has had influence over decisions, rulings, contract negotiations, etc., to a position where one can profit by the results of those decisions. This has been applied to Title 10 personnel and has been upheld as being lawful. However, those rules are reviewed (theoretically)with each and every contract, as are the potential conflict cases.

    Ergo, the burden of proving that restricting employment represents a “reasonable limit” due to conflict of interest falls on the Government, not on the employee. Preemptive restrictions against potential conflicts, above and beyond existing laws involved in such a blanket prohibition would likely not pass legal muster, nor should it.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    *Burma Shave*

    Last line should read: “nor should THEY.” Shame on me, matching plural to singular. Mom, rest her soul, would NOT be happy.

  • http://www.horizondrugs.com/ Glenn

    Same rules for the former Congress people who get involved in lobbying their former co-peoples servants?

2014 Information Domination Essay Contest
7ads6x98y