Plusieurs articles ou analyses attirent notre attention sur une \u00e9tude qui vient d’\u00eatre publi\u00e9e, le 3 avril<\/a>, par CapitalEye<\/em>, la Lettre d’information du Center for Responsive Politics, sur les int\u00e9r\u00eats des parlementaires US dans les industries de d\u00e9fense. L’\u00e9tude est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e notamment par AP, par l’International Herald Tribune<\/em> du 3 avril<\/a>, et comment\u00e9e \u00e9galement par Justin Raimondo, sur Antiwar.com<\/em> ce 4 avril<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe texte texte original pr\u00e9sentant le rapport met en \u00e9vidence plusieurs points int\u00e9ressants: les investissements (actions) des parlementaires dans les industries de d\u00e9fense et leurs satellites (volume totale de $195,5 millions); la position des d\u00e9mocrates, qu’on a tendance \u00e0 percevoir comme anti-guerres, surpassant dans cette sorte d’investissement les r\u00e9publicains en volume d’argent, mais pas en nombre d’actionnaires; l’augmentation de ces investissements dans l’industrie de d\u00e9fense avec ses satellites entre 2004 et 2006, tandis que la guerre en Irak se poursuivait et s’intensifiait.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAccording to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe minimum value of Congress members’ personal investments in these contractors increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percentor even dropped 51 percent. It is also unclear how many members still hold these investments, since reports for 2007 are not due until May 15, 2008. In 2004, the first full year after the Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakersboth hawks and doveshad between $74.9 million and $161.3 million invested in companies under contract with the Department of Defense.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAs the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded and transformed, so, too, has the need for goods and services that extend beyond helicopters, armored vehicles and guns. Giant corporations outside of the defense sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defense contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public. So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbLawmakers’ investments in these contractors yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who earned the most income from these contractors between 2004 and 2006, with Sensenbrenner making at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaping at least $2.6 million.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tToutes ces nouvelles sont r\u00e9jouissantes ou consternantes, selon le point de vue que l’on choisit et l’humeur o\u00f9 l’on se trouve. Par ailleurs, elles nous donnent un signe tangible, non pas tant de la corruption du syst\u00e8me qui est une chose av\u00e9r\u00e9e, mais effectivement du contrat<\/strong> existant entre le complexe militaro-industriel et le reste du syst\u00e8me repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans ce cas par les parlementaires. L’ensemble fonctionne de cette fa\u00e7on depuis l’origine. Peut-\u00eatre le rapport cit\u00e9 ici nous indique-t-il en plus que ces relations ont pris une dimension inattendue et de plus en plus d\u00e9stabilisante. C’est dans cette perspective qu’il faut juger d’autant plus importante la rupture de contrat<\/a> que nous semble \u00eatre le lien \u00e9tabli par Joseph Stuglitz entre l’activit\u00e9 du complexe et ses cons\u00e9quences catastrophiques pour le syst\u00e8me, au contraire de ce qui avait \u00e9t\u00e9 jusqu’ici la coutume.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 4 avril 2008 \u00e0 12H41<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plusieurs articles ou analyses attirent notre attention sur une \u00e9tude qui vient d’\u00eatre publi\u00e9e, le 3 avril, par CapitalEye, la Lettre d’information du Center for Responsive Politics, sur les int\u00e9r\u00eats des parlementaires US dans les industries de d\u00e9fense. L’\u00e9tude est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e notamment par AP, par l’International Herald Tribune du 3 avril, et comment\u00e9e \u00e9galement par… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[7514,3806,3012,3285,2631,3019,7515,5386],"class_list":["post-69804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-capital","tag-cmi","tag-complexe","tag-congres","tag-de","tag-defense","tag-eye","tag-industrie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}