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 URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment