Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: ***Politicians In Outrage; Time To Stand Up***

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like

    ***Politicians In Outrage; Time To Stand Up***

    An incident has taken place recently that has made many in Congress livid. Was it the absurd gas prices that is hurting many Americans? Could it be many of the gross behaviors of people in this administration? No, Congress understands what really matters to the American people and they are "on-fire" MAD about it. Its clear that our government knows how to defend the rights of the people.

    [B][SIZE="4"]Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say[/SIZE][/B]

    By Jim Haley, Herald Writer

    [url]http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080301/NEWS01/492406457&template=printart[/url]

    What could have been a done deal for the Boeing Co. five years ago came down to a two-horse race and finally a multibillion dollar loss for Everett on Friday in the sweepstakes to supply the Air Force with new jet refueling tankers.

    The Air Force's announcement that the $35 billion deal goes to Northrop-Grumman and Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, angered members of Washington's congressional delegation and raised the prospect of congressional hearings on the decision.

    "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," six members of the congressional delegation said in a joint statement. "This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform."

    "I was shocked by the announcement today that the Air Force intends to award the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to the Airbus-Northrop Grumman team, and I believe there will be real skepticism among the defense-related committees in Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks is a powerful member of a Defense Appropriation Committee, and funding of the tankers will have to go through his panel.

    "While we will await the debriefing of the Boeing team to learn how and why the decision was made, I remain convinced that the Boeing 767 tanker version would have been an extremely capable aircraft that would have created 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 in Washington state," Dicks said.

    Rep. Rick Larsen of Everett said he didn't expect the nod to go to Airbus.

    "I think Boeing builds the better tanker," Larsen said. "It is a proven platform and it has the most advanced technology and is a better tanker."

    Congressional members say they hope the decision wasn't influenced by a Boeing procurement scandal five years ago. And they expect Boeing to protest the decision.

    First, the Air Force will sit down with Boeing officials to debrief them, probably on March 12, according to Sue Peyton, assistant defense secretary. Then Boeing has 10 days to file the protest with the Government Accountability Office.

    The GAO has 100 days to deny or uphold a protest.

    The Air Force has discouraged such a review, saying it could delay delivery of the much-needed refueling tanker fleet.

    But a protest may not be the only obstacle for the Air Force.

    Murray said it's still too early to start talking about congressional hearings looking into the tanker decision, but others in Congress say hearings are possible.

    "I wouldn't preclude it," Larsen said.

    "The Air Force will have to explain their decision and (answer) allegations that somehow the rules changed at the end of the game," Larsen said.

    He was referring to news reports Thursday that the Air Force had changed criteria it used to assess rival bids just a few weeks ago.

    The newly named KC-45As will be assembled in Mobile, Ala. The Air Force hopes to begin replacing aging Boeing-built KC-135 tankers by 2013.

    The news wasn't taken well in Olympia.

    "This is unfortunate news for Boeing and the state of Washington," Gov. Chris Gregoire said. "Boeing and its workers build the best planes in the world. They will continue to enjoy great success with their 787 Dreamliner and other innovative products still to come."

    Murray and Dicks were at the Everett Boeing plant Friday, expecting a favorable Boeing decision. Murray said she spent more than two hours talking with disappointed and frustrated Boeing workers.

    "There's a real sense of frustration that we're taking American tax dollars and spending them on military airplanes overseas," Murray said.

    Although the Northrop-Grumman EADS plane would be completed in Alabama, Murray said that it certainly won't be an American plane.

    "You can put an 'American' sticker on a plane and call it American, but you can't call it American made," Murray said. "These planes are clearly going to be made overseas."

    Air Force officials Friday said that a past political scandal involving Boeing and the tankers had nothing to do with their decision.

    In late 2001, Congress authorized the Air Force to lease 100 767s from Boeing and convert them to refueling tankers to replace the old KC-135s. The estimated cost then was a little more than $20 billion.

    Led by Arizona Sen. John McCain, Congress squelched the deal in 2004 after a Boeing procurement scandal that sent a couple former Boeing officials to jail for conflict-of-interest. The scandal also prompted the resignation of two senior Air Force officials.

    The Air Force went back to the drawing board and called for new bids on the purchase of 179 jet refueling aircraft, a deal that's worth about $40 billion.

    Northrop Grumman Corp. Joined forces with the Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, to compete against the Boeing and the Everett-assembled 767s.

    The Boeing procurement scandal shouldn't have dissuaded the military from going with the Everett planes, Murray said.

    "I can't believe that it did," she said. "It certainly will be a question in the back of our minds as we look at it."

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess outrage only happens when the jobs lost involve defense contractors. Prior to the lead up for the Ohio election, where was all the government outrage about the blue collar jobs lost due to NAFTA? I guess those jobs being sent to Asia is okay, but don't f*ck with our defense contractors :zzz::zzz:

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2409594]I guess outrage only happens when the jobs lost involve defense contractors. [/QUOTE]

    You think this is true?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2409617]You think this is true?[/QUOTE]

    Not completely, you are right.

    But let me ask you this; would the issues relating to NAFTA be on the mind of the national media, to this degree, if it were not for this election cycle in Ohio? I am aware that in Ohio attention is always paid to the affect of NAFTA. But what about the National media-USA Today, CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc?

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like
    What are the hangups with NAFTA? I know it promotes free trade but aren't we supposed to have our goods enter the ports of other NAFTA nations tariff free?

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2409641]Not completely, you are right.

    But let me ask you this; would the issues relating to NAFTA be on the mind of the national media, to this degree, if it were not for this election cycle in Ohio? I am aware that in Ohio attention is always paid to the affect of NAFTA. But what about the National media-USA Today, CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc?[/QUOTE]

    You are right about the NAFTA issues only coming up because of the election. You are wrong about the outrage because it is defense contractors.

    And by the way Northrop Gruman is a US company that employs over 100,00 people and ranks 73 in the fortune 500 list of [B]US[/B] industrial companies.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like
    I did some reading on NAFTA and it looks as if the agreement is the most beneficial to Mexico and Canada, and most detrimental to American workers in manufacturing. Personally I am not a protectionist, and see no reason why we need to end the slow rise of a Mexican middle class in order to conserve jobs. Obama adressed steel workers in Ohio to explain how he wanted to renegotiate or do away with NAFTA. Why did the steel industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio collapse? Because the Europeans and others started to make it cheaper. U.S Steel is ranked at #7 in terms of world steel production (behind Luxembourg, Japan, South Korea, India, and China) and the nation's largest steel workers union, the United Steel Workers of America, has 1.2 million members. If we want to be the manufacturing nation we once were we have to make production cheaper than our competitors, and to do that we would have to take a slice of the American dream away from these workers (not that I support doing that). Implementing protectionist policies will only cause prices to rise as it always has.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2409820]U.S Steel is ranked at #7 in terms of world steel production (behind [B][U]Luxembourg,[/U][/B] Japan, South Korea, India, and China).[/QUOTE]

    Luxembourg:eek: That has got to be a mistake. I mean their population in total is under 500,000 people! if they were all working triple shifts in steel mills still it would probably not be enough production to get on that list.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2409820]I did some reading on NAFTA and it looks as if the agreement is the most beneficial to Mexico and Canada, and most detrimental to American workers in manufacturing. Personally I am not a protectionist, and see no reason why we need to end the slow rise of a Mexican middle class in order to conserve jobs. Obama adressed steel workers in Ohio to explain how he wanted to renegotiate or do away with NAFTA. Why did the steel industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio collapse? Because the Europeans and others started to make it cheaper. U.S Steel is ranked at #7 in terms of world steel production (behind Luxembourg, Japan, South Korea, India, and China) and the nation's largest steel workers union, the United Steel Workers of America, has 1.2 million members. If we want to be the manufacturing nation we once were we have to make production cheaper than our competitors, and to do that we would have to take a slice of the American dream away from these workers (not that I support doing that). Implementing protectionist policies will only cause prices to rise as it always has.[/QUOTE]



    [url]http://www.worldsteel.org/?action=storypages&id=195[/url]

    US ranks third behind China and Japan. Luxembourg ranks 38

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2409820]I did some reading on NAFTA and it looks as if the agreement is the most beneficial to Mexico and Canada, and most detrimental to American workers in manufacturing. Personally I am not a protectionist, and see no reason why we need to end the slow rise of a Mexican middle class in order to conserve jobs. Obama adressed steel workers in Ohio to explain how he wanted to renegotiate or do away with NAFTA. Why did the steel industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio collapse? Because the Europeans and others started to make it cheaper. U.S Steel is ranked at #7 in terms of world steel production (behind Luxembourg, Japan, South Korea, India, and China) and the nation's largest steel workers union, the United Steel Workers of America, has 1.2 million members. If we want to be the manufacturing nation we once were we have to make production cheaper than our competitors, and to do that we would have to take a slice of the American dream away from these workers (not that I support doing that). Implementing protectionist policies will only cause prices to rise as it always has.[/QUOTE]
    Yup, all protectionism does is rise prices for everyone in America. Why should the average consumer subsidize the steel worker (or any other industry)? If itís a profitable industry, it can stand on its own two feet. Thereís a reason we donít subsidize milkmen.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=The Turk;2409850]Luxembourg:eek: That has got to be a mistake. I mean their population in total is under 500,000 people! if they were all working triple shifts in steel mills still it would probably not be enough production to get on that list.[/QUOTE]

    Never mind I was looking by company, scratch those rankings. :rolleyes:

    Luxembourg's Arcelor Mittal produces three times as much steel as its nearest competitor (117 mil. metric tons to Nippon Steel's 32 mil. metric tons)

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2409903]Yup, all protectionism does is rise prices for everyone in America. Why should the average consumer subsidize the steel worker (or any other industry)? If itís a profitable industry, it can stand on its own two feet. Thereís a reason we donít subsidize milkmen.[/QUOTE]

    Obama said that he wanted 'fair' trade as opposed to free trade. For one he could not have been more ambiguous in meaning or effusive (pandering) in tone at that Ohio speech. Second, implementing tariffs also causes inflation if you look at the history of protectionist economics. So do price caps. My question to Obama then is, do you want to do away with NAFTA or are you pandering for votes?

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2409949]Obama said that he wanted 'fair' trade as opposed to free trade. For one he could not have been more ambiguous in meaning or effusive (pandering) in tone at that Ohio speech. Second, implementing tariffs also causes inflation if you look at the history of protectionist economics. So do price caps. My question to Obama then is, do you want to do away with NAFTA or are you pandering for votes?[/QUOTE]

    pandering for votes, they all are. After the election Nafta and all the promises to fix it will be forgotten. This is not a democrat/republican thing it is a political thing. Neither side is going to do anything to change it.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    2,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2409820]Why did the steel industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio collapse?[/QUOTE]

    Because Bethlehem Steel et al did not re-invest their profits in to modern steel making methods, and then sat and watched as the rest of the world did and then passed them by.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us