|
The New York Times "economic experts" on the editorial board are defending the Air Force's decision to buy Airbus/Northrop Grumman refueling tankers and not Boeing's.
They mock those concerned:
The Air Force’s selection of a European supplier over Boeing for
its next generation of tanker aircraft has sparked a frenzy of
predictable bipartisan complaints: How could the military outsource
these patriotic jobs?
Their question sets up a straw man, avoiding engaging in the
debate. The question is national security, and who should benefit
from spending our taxpayer money. America does not have the
capacity to ramp up defense production as in World War II.
Because we have outsourced our defense industry, along with other
industries.
Now I am not defending Boeing, an unpatriotic
outsourcer of high magnitude. Boeing, like the U.S. auto
industry, could have joined with us rational traders to make the U.S.
trade laws work for America. Boeing's has intentionally de-linked
itself from U.S. interests, so the U.S. should have little loyalty in
return.
But the point is this: When you spend government
money, let's benefit U.S. workers, farmers and businesses. FDR's
WPA program - which many hated - at least benefited U.S. citizens
directly with very little leakage. We give tax cuts for R&D,
subsidize universities, invest in U.S. infrastructure and hope for
economic returns.
It is legitimate to minimize leakage
overseas. If we pay the bill, we should get the benefits.
This is just common sense.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed