Tom Harkin: “So this practice is clearly an abuse of taxpayers' money. If these companies are compelled to merge for business…”

“So this practice is clearly an abuse of taxpayers' money. If these companies are compelled to merge for business reasons, why do they need a handout from the taxpayer? If the business deals are good, the mergers will happen anyway and the taxpayers will receive any savings without paying anything out. If the deals are bad, then we should not gamble taxpayer funds on them. You would think we would have learned from the savings and loan debacle. You would think we would have learned from the $600 toilet seats and $500 hammers, too. I just do not think it is right to make taxpayers absorb the business costs of an industry capable of paying its own merger expenses. Mr. Korb points out defense is still a profitable business. Over the past year, Lockheed Martin stock increased 48 percent in value, Northrop Grumman is up 50 percent, McDonnell Douglas, a whopping 80 percent. Anyway, right now we have a situation where we give an up-front payment, hopefully for some savings that come down the line. But we do not know whether those savings are going to accrue. One analysis we have shows that only about 15 percent of the savings actually accrued. Here is what other groups have to say on the subject. The Cato Institute: "The costs associated with mergers should not be absorbed by federal taxpayers.…”