Democrats, led by the incessant, yes-we-can chant of Barack Obama, say they want positive change in Washington, but when John McCain actually helps provide that very thing, here is what you get from some of them: moaning, groaning and opportunistically deceptive election-year hooliganism.
The beginning of the story is fairly simple. Boeing and the Air Force had cooked up a crooked deal in which the company would get maybe $6 billion more than was justified for leasing aerial refueling tankers.
By the time the dust had settled, two people who had been Boeing executives — one a former Air Force official — had done time in prison. And, oh yes, the contract had met death by ignominy and Boeing’s chief executive officer and two high-ranking Air Force honchos had scooted from the Pentagon.
McCain was among those crying foul and insisting the new contract be awarded on the basis of truly honest competitive bidding instead of Washington’s pork as usual. Stick with the old, sometimes corrupt ways, and what you get is gross inefficiency and dysfunctional government that can’t even take care of basic infrastructure. It too often plows crucial amounts of its resources into fluff projects chiefly useful because of the votes they produce for lawmakers looking to serve self more than country.
Need it be additionally pointed out that when national security is at stake, settling for the second-rate is a kissing cousin to war profiteering — a case of putting someone’s economic advantage before what will best fit the needs of our military?
So the bidding was done, and guess what? Boeing lost, and European Aeronautic and Defence Space Co. and its U.S. business ally, Northrop Grumman, won. Almost immediately, congressional Democrats from communities that would most benefit from a Boeing contract were wailing that American jobs are being “outsourced” to Europe, that military secrets were being jeopardized and that it was all the fault of the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee, McCain, depicted as something on the order of an anti-American scoundrel.
Note, first off, that the winning bidders were offering more bang for the buck — a tanker that could cart a greater quantity of fuel than the proposed Boeing tanker and, as a New York Times story put it, would also offer “more flexibility for carrying cargo, transporting troops, airlifting refugees and delivering humanitarian aid.” The two winning companies were also deemed likely by the Air Force to deliver 49 tankers within another five years, compared to 19 by Boeing, the story says.
As for jobs, either bidder would do some work in the United States and other work abroad, The Times observes. While Boeing insisted it would produce more U.S. jobs than the European firm and Northrop Grumman, that’s not for sure, and Boeing has so many other contracts that it’s hardly faced with layoffs. The secrecy concern isbunkum. As The Times quotes one expert as saying, this is not missile defense we’re talking about.
The choice, then, was between an old-school taxpayer rip-off producing an inferior product and an excellent product that would much better serve to safeguard American interests and look after American lives.
The difference between jobs appears mainly a matter of which communities get the new ones, and that’s clearly of parochial instead of national importance. We know how McCain stood on all of this. He stood tall, despite the predictable brickbats. What about Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed change agent who wants to bring hope to D.C.? He’s pandering along with the worst of them, and singing a protectionist song.
Maybe he ought to amend his slogan to, “No we can’t.”
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He may be reached at [email protected]
