Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush Hands Out New Jobs...Overseas

Posted by Tula Connell, Firedoglake at 11:12 AM on March 20, 2008.


This action is perverse on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
villagebushlg
Bush

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

So, Bush's Defense Department gives a massive tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the European firm EADS. In doing so, it shunned Boeing, which bid on the contract.

This action is perverse on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

In handing out the contract--worth between $40 billion to $100 billion--for the construction of Air Force refueling tankers, the Bush administration claimed that 25,000 jobs would be created in Alabama and other southern states.

That assertion obscures several key points: Far more jobs--44,000--would have been created had Boeing received the contract, with more than 300 suppliers in 40 states benefiting, according to Boeing. At Boeing plants, those jobs would be highly paid and the workers would be members of unions. The 25,000 jobs Bush claims the contract creates involve far lower-paying jobs assembling parts made overseas. And they're not union jobs.

Since he's taken office, many of Bush's attacks on unions have been overt. But far more insidious are moves like this one, that surreptiously undermine the fundamental premise of the union movement: People who work should earn wages that support themselves and their families.

And look who was instrumental to pushing through this un-American deal: the senator from Arizona, John McCain. Time magazine reports McCain wrote letters and pushed the Pentagon to change the bidding process so that EADS's government subsidies could not be considered when deciding to whom to award the contract. This placed Boeing, which receives no subsidies, at a clear disadvantage and conflicts with U.S. trade policy.

Defense expenditures are supposed to comply with federal Buy American law provisions, which require purchasing certain products from American companies when possible. But this administration has granted more waivers of the Buy American provisions than any administration in history.

Time also reveals that two current advisers to McCain worked on the deal for Northrop and EADS as lobbyists. They gave up their lobbying jobs when they came to work for McCain's campaign, but a third lobbyist, former Rep. Tom Loeffler (R-Texas), lobbied for EADS while serving as McCain's national finance chairman. OpenSecrets reports that McCain received $28,000 in contributions from EADS's American employees, including CEO Ralph Crosby, Senior VP Sam Adcock and lobbyists representing EADS.

In Seattle, where much of the work for Boeing takes place, workers are outraged. Says Garth Fluart, member of Machinists (IAM) Local 751:

I do not understand why American work in a time of a recession is getting sent overseas. It doesn't make any sense at all to me, my family, my friends that are overseas fighting a war right now in Iraq. And for them to say this is going to be a good thing for jobs in Alabama. Are you kidding me?

Fluart and other members of Local 751 start each union meeting in South Seattle by pledging allegiance to the flag.

Along with the Machinists, members of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) also work at Boeing. Says IFPTE President Gregory Junemann:

By turning our backs on American workers, we have certainly missed a prime opportunity to reinvest American taxpayer dollars in our own workforce. Our tax dollars are still at work, but in this circumstance, they are working to the benefit of foreign workers, not U.S. workers.

IAM and IFPTE combined represent 55,000 workers at Boeing.

Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut.

Richard Spevak, a member of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace/IFPTE Local 2001 (SPEEA) in Wichita, speaks for many working people when he says:

I'm so mad I could spit. As an American taxpayer and worker, this is the most blatantly stupid thing our government has done. I feel truly betrayed by the U.S. government.

SPEEA members played a big role in designing the Boeing tanker.

Boeing plans to formally challenge the decision. The company said it will ask the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to review the contract award.

UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles, who directs the union's Aerospace Department, points out that neither EADS nor Northrop Grumman has ever built a tanker with a refueling boom. Boeing, on the other hand, has been building refueling tankers for the U.S. military for more than 75 years.

So once again, the Bush administration has taken a major action based not on facts, but on extremist ideology.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council is calling on Congress to defund the contract, as well as conduct a full investigation into the circumstances under which the contract was awarded to a foreign contractor. The Executive Council also urges all the presidential candidates to condemn the contract and call for it to be overturned. We also have an action here, where you can send a message to your representatives in Congress, urging them to overturn this decision.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, labor, economy, unions, boeing


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Screw Boeing
Posted by: madmatt on Mar 20, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They shouldn't even of been allowed to bid after their attempts to bribe and manipulate their way to winning the contract were discovered. If we do not start punishing wrongdoers, nothing will ever change. As for the boeing employees...sorry that your corrupt bosses cost you your jobs...better luck next time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Screw Boeing Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Screw Boeing Posted by: JSquercia
» "bad government" Posted by: BKLN
» RE: right-wing anarchists Posted by: Mycos
If the Bush dynasty had their way
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 20, 2008 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no American, since the inception of our Republic, would ever have a job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the other foot
Posted by: Melvin on Mar 20, 2008 7:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it's ok to sell F15's to European countries at the expence of their aircraft industry;right!! How about military helicopters,the list is long.
For many years the USA has kept out 'foreign' arms manufacterers & become fat with the proceeds. Interesting what happens with a level playing field.It's a corrupt industry where the most corrupt win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On the other foot Posted by: Patriot46
FAT CATS
Posted by: jeffreytaos on Mar 21, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are we going to bid out contracts to help overseas oil clean-ups? When are we going to bid out contracts to small business in devasted domestic areas? When are we going to ensure that contractors serve the people who pay them and disavow corrupt lobbyist? When the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber, and our kids get a laptop where all the pieces were made by fair trade labor practices, then we will have seen change. It's sad whats going on in the world. Bechtel sues the entire country of Bolivia over contract disputes and threatens to destabilize the region and reaps billions from the war in Iraq, while terrorist hide in Syria and Afghanisthan, all the while, oil is being pumped out of Iraq and the profits are going to unknown individuals, and we pay for it at the pump, at the supermarket, and in the awarding of these fat contracts. The word fat-cat was coined in the 193o's to describe those guilty of gluttony, one of the original seven deadly sins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Low in Union Busting
Posted by: jmmartin on Mar 21, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Arbusto and McPain send government contracts abroad on a ruse that more jobs will be created in the U.S. when, in fact, the bulk of the jobs will be created overseas. And the ulterior motive is to see to it that union workers don't get work? Seems to me this a new definition for the old adage, "cutting off your nose to spite your face." I do hope Obama's people are keeping a list of all these many reasons to keep McPain out of the White House. McPain is Bush III.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY?
Posted by: gooch on Mar 21, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand this man ( Bush) He is not concern about the middle class and no one even believes in Him.I have worked hard all my life teaching Special Education for 36-years. Now I am retired, somewhat handicap. My concern is My Old age and Living.

May God Be With Us.

*A Middle Class person who is a Senior Citzen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHY? Posted by: Doubtom
missing the point
Posted by: lazydog on Mar 21, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, all this talk about military re-fueling planes.

In my simple mind, the idea is to have less military, not more.
How about using that money to create more jobs in the "Peace" sector?

The world needs change, not continuation of the ways of the "dinosaur".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

missing the point
Posted by: lazydog on Mar 21, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, all this talk about military re-fueling planes.

In my simple mind, the idea is to have less military, not more.
How about using that money to create more jobs in the "Peace" sector?

The world needs change, not continuation of the ways of the "dinosaur".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Entire Argument Is "Off-Point"
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Mar 21, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire thrust of the Boeing v Northrup contract issue is so ‘off point’ that it’s hard to understand as anything other than a U.S. mega-corporation (and its beneficiaries) whining because their lobbyists failed to out bribe the other mega-corporation’s lobbyists.

First, “lazydog” is right. The umbrella issue is not “which airborne tanker” but “whether airborne tankers“.

But if, however, one argues that U.S. imperialistic demands mandate airborne tankers the question becomes “which airborne tanker is better and more cost effective?” not “which airborne tanker contributes most to the U.S. economy?” (which would be a sub question of “how best to invest America’s tax revenues to benefit the U.S. economy" - for which the list of answers would likely have many items ahead of “build airborne tankers”).

Unfortunately, the issue has bogged down with benefit to the U.S. economy becoming the primary talking point.

There appear to be many reasons that Northrup won the tanker contract and Boeing didn’t, including the facts that they underbid Boeing, they actually built a tanker boom ‘on spec’ and proved it works (whereas Boeing’s argument was ‘trust us’)in an application of the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport that‘s actually flying with the RAF, RAAF, UAE, & Saudis, as well as the fact that American workers will benefit from the contract although not to the extent they might have with Boeing.

What this entire “controversy” actually demonstrates is the degree to which corporate interests (national & transnational) determine both U.S. defense & national policy. If Boeing actually does win a reversal it will not be a victory for American workers but for corporate domination of public policy.

…so what’s new?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paying Debts For EU Complacency
Posted by: Mycos on Mar 21, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is merely an attempt by Bush to make good on the proises he made to the EU if they didn't squeal too loud about US violations of international law. Now that the US economy is in the crapper and the EU and China are holding the mortgage on it, this contract is a gesture that he''s willing to play nice with Europe now that the "Pax Americana" idea isn't going to offer them all the immunity from prosecution they had originally counted on. They're laying down potential escape routes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American for liberty, truth, and justice
Posted by: Michael_D on Mar 21, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all coming out now. My how we all have been in the dark like most don't understand yet.

See how this war failed and continues to fail -> No End In Sight

Watch 'Behind The Big News: Propaganda and the CFR' on google video and spread it now!!!
We must get rid of big government and demand accountability from all leaders from here on out. We must turn off our TV's and become the media.

DOWN with corporate media. UP with the U.S. Constitution.

We must get rid of the voting machines by Novemeber. We have to or we will forever remain HELPLESS. All other candidates = doom. Please help us spread the news for Congressman/Dr./Economist Ron Paul. He just may be on the ballot in some way (doesn't matter which).

WE HAVE TO DO THIS ALL NOW! SPREAD THE NEWS!

The only guy that stood between Bush/Sharon and Iran recently RESIGNED. (many say forced out) If we attack Iran under the lies propagaded to us and hyped recently because of this false reason to stay overseas and kill/torture/displace/control all these people, it will come back to this country GUARANTEED.

IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH.. DO IT NOW.. DON"T THINK WE CAN'T!!!!
http://www.impeachbush.org
http://www. impeach bush .org

IMPEACH THEM BOTH NOW!!!

The revolution is on! Wake up to what we all have let the media do to America! They have now consolidated into only 5 corporations for everything on TV!!!! These commentators on TV are even fooled (or part of it!!!)

The Clinton's ? watch Clinton Chronicles on google vdeo and SPREAD IT NOW!!! See this and WAKE UP TO THE TRUE POWER OF MEDIA MANIPULATION!

realize this fact too pretty damn quick people:

Coke Bush

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Yet ... and yet ....
Posted by: rafey on Mar 21, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And yet, so many of those displaced workers will once again vote against their own economic interests (and continue to blame Bill linton for all their troubles).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, what are we trying to buy here?
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 21, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Boeing fan, but this whole issue is misguided.

Are we trying to create another jobs program or trying to buy the best refueling tanker we can get? If we want the best tanker, then we want the Northrop-EADS aircraft. It more closely meets the Air Force's requirements.

Boeing got lazy because they want to keep their 767 production lines open and make more money, rather than offer something newer and better. They bid with the 767-based tanker, rather than analyze what the USAF really was asking for and then providing it: the heart and soul of capitalism. Boeing deserved to get clocked upside the head this time. I hate that Boeing's mismanagement of the entire process (first attempted bribery, then offer a second-rate product) may cost many working people their jobs.

I ask again: what are we buying? The best plane for the job or a jobs program for Boeing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EXPORTING U.S. JOBS IS IMPOVERISHMENT
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Mar 23, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(“The thrust of social policy affecting poor families
during the past 10 years has been to encourage single
mothers to work, and if they do, give them more support –
and give them less if they don’t. BUT WE HAVEN’T DONE
ANYTHING to help support the very low-income FATHERS
to get by or to encourage them to work, and there hasn’t
been much to encourage them to be involved with their children...”
--Bruce Meyer, Univ. Chicago)



"IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR HEALTH ARE JOBS, JOBS, AND JOBS...THERE IS LITTLE QUESTION THAT EMPLOYMENT IS A POWERFUL PREVENTIVE HEALTH INTERVENTION, IN TERMS OF BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH STATUS..." ---Bernard J. Turnock, Public Health, 2nd ed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]