Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The U.S. Army Fife and Drum Corp. during a celebration of the 237th birthday of the U.S. Army on the grounds of George Washington’s Mount Vernon in Virginia.

If any place in the U.S. feels the sting of federal budget cuts, it’ll be Virginia’s Fairfax County.

The home to George Washington’s Mount Vernon and Central Intelligence Agency headquarters is more dependent on the U.S. government than ever.

Federal spending as a share of Fairfax County’s economy has almost doubled since 2002, to 14.4 percent.

While less than half the size of Luxembourg at 407 square miles, the county just west of the nation’s capital boasts a $194 billion economy that is bigger than Hungary’s.

Now, Fairfax County’s 1.1 million residents are bracing for the effects of sequestration. Localities — from Fairfax to Pine Bluff, Arkansas — reliant on federal dollars will take a disproportionate hit from reductions that Goldman Sachs & Co. estimates will subtract 0.6 percentage point from U.S. economic growth this year.

“It’s become obvious that our closeness to the federal government is both good news and bad news,” said Sharon Bulova, a Democrat who has led the Fairfax Board of Supervisors since 2009.

Fairfax’s wealth and educated workforce, with median family income of $119,634 and 29 percent of its 25-and-older population holding graduate degrees, will help it avoid hard times. Still,sequestration will test those strengths.

Since 2004, Fairfax has been the nation’s top recipient of federal contract dollars, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Four of the county’s top six employers — Lockheed Martin Corp., Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and SAIC Inc. — are among the 20 biggest federal vendors.

See the full report by Bloomberg’s Lorraine Woellert.

Original post is Fairfax County: Sequestration’s Test by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

John Brennan, nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and White House chief counterterrorism adviser, center, speaks during a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington.

The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to consider the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, setting up a floor vote later in the week. The Senate Budget Committee looks for ways to eliminate giveaways in the tax code, with testimony from Jared Bernstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Democrats Tom Harkin and George Miller will introduce legislation to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, or about $21,000 a year. Federal lawmakers earn, or at least receive, $174,000 in salary.

The National Association for Business Economics wraps up its annual Washington Conference, with speakers including White House Council of Economic Advisors’ Alan Krueger, Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard and AutoNation Inc. CEO Mike Jackson.

The Pentagon’s top program manager for the F-35 fighter speaks about the program at an Aviation Week conference. Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan criticized the plane’s builder, Lockheed Martin, and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney in Australia last week.

A House Energy and Commerce panel examines why it’s important to have different fuel sources for electricity generation. Panel chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield is a big backer of coal. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff meet officials from Duke Energy to discuss whether the company violated its license for fire protection at a South Carolina nuclear plant. The Environmental Protection Agency holds a meetings on reducing exposure of honey bees and other pollinators to pesticides. Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, attend an Environmental Working Group briefing on the need to overhaul crop insurance regulations.

In financial regulation today, the Peterson Institute holds a discussion on regulation of “too big to fail” financial institutions with Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, and former Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Utah Republican. A House Education and Workforce panel hears from Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Director Joshua Gotbaum on multi-employer pension plans. And the North American Securities Administrators Association releases its 2013 legislative agenda, including measures on crowdfunding and the fiduciary duty rule for broker-dealers.

And Bloomberg News reporter Todd Shields moderates a panel discussion on the Internet economy, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, hosted by the Internet Association.

Original post is Washington Daybook: Minimum Effort by Political Capital.

Photograph by Paramount/Everett Collection

The Klingon Bird of Prey from “Star Trek: The Voyage Home.”

Which is the U.S. Navy talking, and which is Star Trek talking?

One of the descriptions below comes from the Navy’s words for the Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS, a fast boat from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics designed to defeat threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and other fast surface craft.

The other comes from Star Trek’s manual for the inter-galactic, warp speed-capable Klingon Bird-of-Prey, a warship deployed by the Klingon Empire serving Klingon Defense Forces from the late 23rd century into the late 24th century.

1)  “Design philosophy has always centered on tried-and-tested methods and places great importance on the ability to mass-produce ships at great speed. The modular design means that the maximum number of ships can be produced at the fastest possible rate.”

2)   “Wargames and field experimentation have demonstrated the value of distributing combat power among modular-mission platforms — small surface craft with reconfigurable on- and off-board systems which are networked to warfighters.”

Which is the Navy, which is Star Trek?

Think first, then find the answer below:

2): Navy

Original post is Star Trek vs. Navy: Klingons vs. Lockheed Martin by Political Capital.

Photograph by Kim Jae-Hwan/AFP/Getty Images

US M1A1 Abrams tanks are loaded onto a train during the Army Preposition Stocks operation drill at Camp Carroll in Chilgok, southeast of Seoul.

Defense companies would be hit hardest by automatic government spending cuts set to take effect at midnight, but investors aren’t panicking yet.

Shares of the 10 biggest Pentagon contractors rose 1.2 percent today as Democrats and Republicans remained at odds over a deal to forestall across-the-board spending cuts. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rallied 1.7 percent.

If no deal on the spending cuts is reached by midnight, reductions to domestic and national security programs totaling about $110 billion in 2013 will begin this week.

“Investors who are holding large positions in companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics — they realize that even in a sequestration environment these companies are not going away,” said Michael Lewis, managing director of the Silverline Group LLC, a consulting firm in McLean, Virginia.

While the deal being discussed on Capitol Hill would prevent tax hikes on all but the wealthiest households, it wouldn’t achieve what both parties set out to accomplish: sufficient deficit reduction to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path.

The last-minute proposal is a greatly scaled-down version of a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner previously considered. A Bloomberg Government analysis last month found that it would take a $9 trillion deal to ensure the country’s long-run fiscal soundness amid the demands of an aging population and rising health-care costs.

Original post is Defense Investors Stay Calm Heading for Cliff by Political Capital.

Photograph by Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

Secretarty of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, watch President Barack Obama at the NATO Summit in Chicago.

There’s nothing like a sex scandal to weaken the standing of a Washington power broker.

Take David Petraeus, the former CIA director and a retired star general of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The once-widely admired Petraeus was slated to place in the top 10 of the inaugural Top 100 Most Influential People in U.S. Defense, released today by the sister trade publications Defense News and Army Times.

The preliminary ranking had to be revised after Petraeus admitted to a sexual affair and resigned his CIA post. He plunged to No. 100 on the list.

That rating makes him less influential than Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who has been charged with leaking classified documents to the Wikileaks anti-secrecy website. Manning came in at No. 60.

Marine General John Allen, the top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, who got caught up in the Petraeus investigation, also fell down the list after e-mails he wrote to a Tampa, Florida, socialite surfaced as part of the probe. He dropped from the top 10 to No. 34.

And then there’s Christopher Kubasik, who had been tapped to head Lockheed Martin Corp. He was sure to make the list as head of the world’s largest defense contractor– until he suddenly resigned last month after acknowledging a relationship with a subordinate.

“Instead of having the bully pulpit afforded to the chief of the world’s biggest defense contractor, he became a nonfactor, tumbling right off the list,” Defense News said in an article explaining its results.

Petraeus, while coming in dead last, nonetheless made the cut.

“Petraeus survives at No. 100 because of his many (accolades) throughout the military and because history shows that rarely does such an aggressive, ambitious and dynamic leader remain in the shadows for long,” the paper said.

So who topped the list?

Drumroll please…

White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is No. 1, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta comes in second and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes in third.

Original post is Defense and Scandal: Reshuffling Top 100 Most Influential in the Field by Political Capital.

Photograph by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey briefs the media at the Pentagon.

Never mind Hollywood’s Golden Globe nominations.

Defense industry bigwigs in Washington want to know who made The List.

Two sister trade publications, Defense News and Army Times, are compiling their first Top 100 Most Influential People in Defense.

The list, to be unveiled Monday, is the brainchild of Richard Sandza, managing editor of Army Times.

“We’ve had some inquiries from the defense world, not necessarily from the Pentagon, trying to gather a little intelligence on who’s on our list, what we’ve been up to,” Sandza says

They haven’t learned much.

“We’ve run ads in our newspapers saying it’s classified,” he says.

Sandza did offer a few non-surprising tidbits: Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the list. The rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made the list as a group.

Yet most of the most influential don’t wear a military uniform.

“There are 945 generals and admirals in the military,” Sandza says. “Fewer than 25 made our list.”

The list, which was whittled down from about 200 people selected by the papers’ staff, had to be revised in the wake of two recent scandals, he says. Former CIA Director David Petraeus resigned after acknowledging a sexual affair. The Petraeus scandal also triggered an investigation into Marine General John Allen, the commander of forces in Afghanistan. At the same time, Christopher Kubasik, who had been tapped to head Lockheed Martin Corp., resigned after acknowledging a relationship with a subordinate.

“All of them fell down our list and some of them fell off,” Sandza says.

Which ones survived? `

`You’ve got to tune in Monday to find out,” he says.

Original post is Generals Slide, Fall From `The List’ — Defense Industry Awaits Full Roster by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Marine One, with U.S. President Barack Obama on board, passes the Washington Monument in Washington.

Let’s try this again:

The U.S. Navy last week announced plans for a competition to develop and build a new fleet of presidential helicopters.

The draft notice came three years after the service canceled a contract with Lockheed Martin Corp. for a similar program after costs more than doubled to $13 billion from $6 billion. The increases were driven partly by changing specifications for the aircraft.

As part of the new program, known as VXX, the Navy plans to buy about two dozen helicopters to replace aging VH-3D Sea King and VH-60N WhiteHawk aircraft made by United Technologies Corp.’s Sikorsky unit. The Nov. 23 announcement makes it clear the Navy is looking for a proven design.

“Offerors will be highly encouraged to propose an existing, in-production helicopter platform from which the VXX will be derived,” it states.

Four companies have responded to the notice so far, including Sikorsky. The subsidiary of Hartford, Connecticut-based United Technologies has partnered with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed to compete for the program.

While the Navy buys the helicopters, the Marine Corps flies them.

And when the president is aboard, the call-sign of the chopper is “Marine One.”

Original post is `Marine One’ Contractors Bid Anew by Political Capital.

Photograph by Mike Fuentes/Bloomberg

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16 Fighting Falcon jet during a ceremony to commemorate the 4,500th delivery of the plane.

Government is more reliant than ever on private-sector contractors, a Bloomberg Government Study ranking the top 200 federal suppliers says.

Downsizing in the 1990s cost hundreds of thousands of federal employees their jobs, but if Congress and the administration let automatic budget cuts take effect next year, then private-sector contract employees will bear the brunt this time around.

That will also make competition for the remaining federal dollars fiercer than ever. “A shrinking federal budget means that contractors will have to take market share from other contractors to grow,” said Bloomberg Government analyst Brian Friel, author of the study. “Companies can use these rankings to identify potential customers — federal agencies — and the competitors they’ll face off with for business with those customers.”

For now, it’s still lonely at the top for Lockheed Martin. Its $42.9 billion in government contracts last year was nearly double that of second-place Boeing.

Original post is Budget Cuts Would Hit Contractors Hard by Political Capital.