The commonest error in politics," said Lord Salisbury, "is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."
Lord Salisbury's rule comes to mind on reading of John McCain's delight at the $40 billion contract awarded the French-led parent of Airbus -- to build the next generation of U.S. Air Force tankers.
The contract could run to $100 billion and is a body blow to Boeing in its duel to the death with Airbus. Two-thirds of all air-to-air refueling tankers are used by the United States. The contract gives a 30-year lease on life to the expiring Airbus A330 and means early death for Boeing's 767, the U.S. Model for the tanker
Congratulating himself for having exposed corruption in the Boeing bid, McCain purred, "I have always insisted that the Air Force buy major weapons through fair and open competition."
If McCain thinks Airbus has prospered through "fair and open competition," he is beyond recall. In its first 25 years, Airbus sold 770 planes but did not make a dime in profit. It was started as a socialist cartel, subsidized by the governments of Spain, France, Britain and Germany, to invade and capture a market owned by Americans who built the planes that won World War II.
Airbus drove Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas out of the business of commercial aircraft and almost took down Boeing. And like indolent buffalo munching grass as they are shot one by one, we let it happen.
Lost U.S. Jobs should not be our primary concern, said McCain, "I've always felt the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."
The indignation of Americans is growing rapidly about the U.S. Air Force granting a French company a $35 billion tanker-aircraft contract that could eventually grow to $100 billion and is estimated to create 100,000 jobs in Europe. French government subsidies are one of the factors that enabled the lucky company (known as EADS) to underbid Boeing.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA), the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is leading the battle in Congress to overturn this decision. He thinks it is outrageous that U.S. Taxpayers should be paying to create jobs in foreign countries.
It is bad enough that the United States has been hemorrhaging millions of manufacturing jobs that are critical to sustaining our middle class. It's even worse that government policies are deliberately outsourcing jobs that are critical to our national security.
All during the Clinton and Bush Administrations, U.S. Negotiators signed trade agreements that allow foreign competitors to create and maintain unfair border-tax schemes that massively discriminate against U.S. Manufacturers and service providers, and give foreign competitors a dramatic advantage in the U.S. Market. The principal border-tax scheme used against us is the Value Added Tax (VAT).
When foreign manufacturers export their products to the United States, the Value Added Taxes they paid are generously rebated by their governments. Isn't that cool! General Motors, Chrysler and Ford would surely be in better shape if the U.S. Government rebated the heavy U.S. Taxes they have paid.
But that's only half the story. When U.S. Manufacturers try to sell their products in foreign countries, they are required to pay border taxes not only on the value of the product itself, but also on the value of all transportation, insurance and other costs.
The bottom line is that these border-tax schemes heavily subsidize the products other countries sell to us, while erecting a high tax barrier against our goods when we try to sell overseas. The combination of foreign governments' export subsidies and import taxes amounted to a $428 billion disadvantage to U.S. Manufacturers and service providers in 2006.
My late good friend, the well-known Senator Everett Dirksen, used to quip about government policies by saying, "A billion here, a billion there, and soon we'll be talking about real money."
The border-tax problem does, indeed, involve real money. In 2006, it was four times as costly as the Iraq war (VAT: $428 billion; Iraq war: $101 billion, according to Congressional Research Service figures), and two times greater than the U.S.-China trade deficit ($232 billion). The United States has no mechanism to stop or offset this foreign border-tax racket, which creates a severely unlevel playing field. Our complaints and petitions to the World Trade Organization have fallen on deaf ears.
But how could we expect any better treatment? We are only one vote out of 152, and most of the other countries don't like us anyway. This border-tax subsidy started shortly after World War II. U.S. Officials, steeped in a Marshall Plan foreign-handout mentality, agreed to allow France to protect its domestic market, going and coming, by border-tax subsidies and taxes. What followed was monkey-see-monkey-do. Other countries found they could play the same anti-American game. Today, 149 countries use the border-subsidy-and-tax scheme to discriminate against U.S. Products. In addition, the foreign border-tax rates have grown and grown. France's border tax rate of 2 percent in the late 1940s has risen to 19.6 percent today, and the average for all 149 countries is 15.5 percent.
These figures show that the push for the United States to lower or eliminate our tariffs is one of the costliest con jobs ever perpetrated on Americans. We cut our tariffs in the name of "free trade," but 149 foreign countries simply replaced their tariffs with approximately equivalent border taxes benignly called "Value Added," and then doubled the indignity by handing out subsidies to make their products more saleable in U.S. Markets.
The American people rose up with a mighty roar a couple of years ago to kill the Bush Administration deal to outsource control of 22 East and Gulf Coast port operations to Dubai Ports World, which is controlled by a Middle East government. We are looking for a similar grassroots uprising to kill the deal to outsource the building of aircraft essential to our national defense.
America's industrial base is a vital part of our national security. We can't afford to put it under the control of foreign governments. The French tanker-aircraft deal should be a Red Alert about the unfair treatment of Americans by various trade agreements and contracts. Then, perhaps we can build momentum to protect what's left of our manufacturing base and middle-class jobs by establishing a level playing field for foreign trade.
Will Sarah Palin Break the Glass-Ceiling
by Malinda Joy, Sep 9, 2008
Tags: election palin Sarah women
Women are unique individuals with various gifts and talents. Some of us are superwomen who can multi-task while some of us concentrate on one thing at a time. This year is particularly exciting for women in politics.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s women were rarely elected to public office at the State or National levels of government in the United States of America.
Things have changed. Women have been elected at all levels of Government from the local level to Congress. Yet, a woman has not been elected to the offices of President or Vice President of the USA.
For the past two years, women have watched as Candidate Hillary Rodman Clinton vied with Candidate Barrack Hussein Obama to become the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the USA. Hillary Clinton lost that campaign.
The pundits and Monday-night-quarter-backs will be attempting to assess the reasons for months, if not years, for Hillary Clinton’s defeat.
In the meantime, we are all focused on the question---”Will Governor Sarah Palin who is the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Republican Party “break through that proverbial glass-ceiling”.
Will VP Candidate Palin become the first woman Vice President of the United States of America?
That question can best be answered by posing more questions.
Why did Hillary Clinton lose the nomination for President?
Did the Democrat Party’s Call To Convention create a bias that would favor Barrack Hussein Obama with the creation of Super Delegates ?
Did Hillary Clinton fail to fully assess Barrack Obama's weaknesses and use them against him; thereby, bolstering her own candidacy?
Did Hillary Clinton fail to remove her “lady-gloves early in the campaign”. In other words , was she too polite?
From my observations, the answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes. With the last question being the most important.
In the spring of 2008, it seems that Candidate Clinton finally understood that the rules were stacked against her and that she was under attack from all directions.
Finally, Candidate Clinton shed her lady-gloves as she campaigned in the beautiful mountains of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. Alas, it was too little and too late.
In politics, what is here one day is gone the next day.
As Candidate Clinton exited from center-stage to return to her former job as a US Senator for New York, Alaskan Governor Sarah Heath Palin claimed center-stage as the Republican Nominee for Vice President.
Will Sarah Palin repeat the mistakes of Candidate Clinton? Will she assess and utilize her opponent’s weaknesses ----will she remember to remove those figurative lady-gloves to attack when necessary?
Will Sarah Palin break the figurative glass ceiling to become the first woman Vice President of America?
