Jesse Jackson: sellout, protectionist, or patriot?

[Darth Rotor]

It isn't often I agree with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, but I have a hard time disagreeing with his basic position here, in terms of where the DoD ought to be spending tax dollars on fulfilling the Air Force tanker requirement. IMO, at home, to both preserve the industrial base and to keep high tech jobs at home. (Granted, whatever contract is awarded, there will doubtless be some American subs on it, etc etc.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080219/EDITORIAL/914504228/1013

It's part of a disturbing trend of exporting jobs and capital, and importing cheap labor and products, all of which undermines America's working families and our economy.
==snip==
But in an absurd plot twist fit for a murder mystery novel, the Department of Defense is giving foreign companies an unfair advantage and threatening tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
==snip==
Soon the Department of Defense (DoD) will determine the winner of the Air Force's $40 billion contract to build new aerial refueling aircraft, or "tankers." In the competition, Boeing is going head to head with French manufacturer EADS, whose bid has been heavily subsidized by European Union countries to the tune of billions of dollars.

Not to tweak Jesse's nose too hard, but European Labor isn't cheap, not by a long shot.

I never thought I'd see Jesse Jackson stand up for the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

Life's a funny old dog.

DR

 

[WildCat]

I wonder if he'd feel the same way if it were Halliburton going up against a foreign company on a contract?

 

[fuelair]

It isn't often I agree with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, but I have a hard time disagreeing with his basic position here, in terms of where the DoD ought to be spending tax dollars on fulfilling the Air Force tanker requirement. IMO, at home, to both preserve the industrial base and to keep high tech jobs at home. (Granted, whatever contract is awarded, there will doubtless be some American subs on it, etc etc.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080219/EDITORIAL/914504228/1013

Not to tweak Jesse's nose too hard, but European Labor isn't cheap, not by a long shot.

I never thought I'd see Jesse Jackson stand up for the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

Life's a funny old dog.

DR

It is that - and we certainly agree on Jackson!! And, for me it's not so much the tax dollars as the question of is technology being installed that Europe might be borrowing (I kind of like our tech staying pretty much in our hands)

 

[Garrette]

I don't think Jesse's standing up for the Mil-Ind Complex at all, but his point does have merit.

I question this wording: "the Department of Defense is giving foreign companies an unfair advantage." DoD is giving no advantage at all; as I understand it, DoD has merely complied with the requirements of competitive bidding. You (Darth) know more about procurement at that level than I do, but I don't think DoD has internal authority to deny anotherwise qualified bidder because of foreign governmental actions which Congress has not said disqualify that bid.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think Jesse's standing up for the Mil-Ind Complex at all, but his point does have merit.

I question this wording: "the Department of Defense is giving foreign companies an unfair advantage." DoD is giving no advantage at all; as I understand it, DoD has merely complied with the requirements of competitive bidding. You (Darth) know more about procurement at that level than I do, but I don't think DoD has internal authority to deny anotherwise qualified bidder because of foreign governmental actions which Congress has not said disqualify that bid.

Yes. There are deals within deals at the Congressional and Secretariat levels that Jackson isn't addressing, or doesn't know enough about to address. (See as an example the US buys Penguin Missiles from Norway as a quid pro quo for F-16's, back in the 80s.) There are also issues with commercial offsets on other FMS and across the border deals, each one with its own unique requirements.

This is like the Eurocopter deal for the Presidential helicopter: there's a bunch of work to be done by LM in America on the contract, even though my dismay at the award remains. (Sikorsky makes a quality helicopter.) It isn't all going to be done in Europe.

DR

 

[billydkid]

To bad Jesse is nothing but a self serving/promoting, exploitive opportunist.

 

[Rob Lister]

It isn't often I agree with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, but I have a hard time disagreeing with his basic position here, in terms of where the DoD ought to be spending tax dollars on fulfilling the Air Force tanker requirement. IMO, at home, to both preserve the industrial base and to keep high tech jobs at home. (Granted, whatever contract is awarded, there will doubtless be some American subs on it, etc etc.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080219/EDITORIAL/914504228/1013

Not to tweak Jesse's nose too hard, but European Labor isn't cheap, not by a long shot.

I never thought I'd see Jesse Jackson stand up for the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

Life's a funny old dog.

DR

Oddly, I too am against EADS getting the contract (but I don't think they will, given it is almost certainly a best value competition). But not because of "jobs". I don't think our military should rely upon any foreign manufacture. I was going to look up the terms on FBO but I'm too lazy today (but is someone has the RFP number, I'll provide the analysis.)

 

[Spindrift]

(See as an example the US buys Penguin Missiles from Norway as a quid pro quo for F-16's, back in the 80s.)

DR

Penguin Missiles? Why would we want to fire missiles at penguins?

One would hope that the DoD would primarily be concerned about getting the best tanker. I know that may be a novel idea, but one can hope can't one?

 

[Rob Lister]

Penguin Missiles? Why would we want to fire missiles at penguins?

One would hope that the DoD would primarily be concerned about getting the best tanker. I know that may be a novel idea, but one can hope can't one?

Depends on how you define 'best'.

 

[Spindrift]

Depends on how you define 'best'.

I would hope that DoD would have a set of criteria. (I do a lot of hoping when it comes to the government.) I don't have any problem with giving weight to the fact that Boeing is American. That fact that it is an American company has some tangible benefits beyond a pure "Buy American" attitude. But I if the main reason to pick Boeing is only because it's American then I think that's wrong.

 

[Rob Lister]

I would hope that DoD would have a set of criteria. (I do a lot of hoping when it comes to the government.) I don't have any problem with giving weight to the fact that Boeing is American. That fact that it is an American company has some tangible benefits beyond a pure "Buy American" attitude. But I if the main reason to pick Boeing is only because it's American then I think that's wrong.

I hear you but I disagree. I think selecting American companies should be mandatory in all but the most exceptional cases. Again, my 'thinking' has nothing whatsoever to do with economic protectionism and everything to do with actual, militaristic, protectionism; it simply does not do to become 'beholding' to the supply whims of any foreign dictate.

It is also for this reason that I so strongly support the sale of U.S. Arms to foreign nations -- once you control the supply, you control the force.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Penguin Missiles? Why would we want to fire missiles at penguins?

One would hope that the DoD would primarily be concerned about getting the best tanker. I know that may be a novel idea, but one can hope can't one?

I eagerly await your requirements and cost definition of "best."

Please share iit with us.

DR

 

[fuelair]

Penguin Missiles? Why would we want to fire missiles at penguins?

One would hope that the DoD would primarily be concerned about getting the best tanker. I know that may be a novel idea, but one can hope can't one?

Penguins can be vicious little buggers - especially when drunk.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Penguins can be vicious little buggers -

Especially when flying with a Seahawk.

 

[daredelvis]

To bad Jesse is nothing but a self serving/promoting, exploitive opportunist.

Yes, that certainty sets him apart from all other politicians.

Daredelvis

 

[fuelair]

Yes, that certainty sets him apart from all other politicians.

Daredelvis

Only in the scale he operates at!!!

Nowadays it bothers me I once voted for him.

Voting for Shirley Chisolm, though, I have never regretted. She should have won!!!

 

[Puppycow]

Northrop Grumman Wins