Murtha threatens Northrop-Grumman deal that includes jobs for Florida

[Purveyor]

The Air Force defended its decision to grant Northrop Grumman and its European partner a $35 billion tanker contract, despite threats Wednesday that funding for the project could be pulled by the chairman of a committee that oversees the congressional budget.

"We want to make sure everybody was treated fairly," said Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. "This committee funds this program. All this committee has to do is stop the money and this program does not go forward."

Murtha convened the hastily-called hearing to quiz top military officials about their decision, announced last Friday to the shock of the anticipated winner, The Boeing Co., the archrival of Northrop's Paris-based partner, Airbus-parent EADS.

The Northrop contract will create 2,000 high-paying jobs in Florida, including about 400 at its Melbourne facility. Most of the final assembly work will occur in Mobile, Ala., which will mean jobs for residents in nearby Northwest Florida. Northrop has said it also will use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio.

The decision has generated an outcry from several lawmakers, particularly those whose congressional districts include Boeing manufacturing facilities. Some lawmakers argue the Air Force decision will lead to massive losses in domestic jobs.

---eoe---

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/06/murtha-threatens-northrop-grumman-deal-includes-jo/

[FalconsRule]

1. Good for Murtha!!

There is NO way Congress should allow this to stand.

[wuushew]

2. why?

:shrug:

[FalconsRule]

5. Because

Acording to Patty Murry, if Boeing had won, it would have meant 44,000 US jobs. I'd prefer US taxpayer dollars spent on US jobs rather than French, German, and English jobs.

[wuushew]

7. How about cutting checks to the homeless from the money saved?

or partially funding SCHIP?

[FalconsRule]

9. Was that one of the options?

I must have missed that.

[Parche]

12. Tankers

Because we do need tankers, and this is the best way to get them

Have Boeing build them

I dont want Airbus to

:hi:

[Angleae]

48. Patty Murry is a lying sack of shit too.

She's just looking after her coprorate campaign donors.

[usaftmo]

68. Boeing is already in trouble

In the late 90's the Air Force/Boeing got into a lot of trouble over awarding contracts. Several personnel involved in awarding contracts awarded contracts to Boeing, then immediately retired/quit...only to work at Boeing benefiting from the contracts they awarded.

Some (not all) of the components are being made overseas, then being shipped to the States, where they will be transformed from civilian aircraft to military aircraft.

Northrop-Gruman is the main company that got this contract, and some of the work is going to the company that owns Airbus.

If the components that Airbus produces are of better quality and overall a better product than what Boeing makes...then I have no problem with Airbus making some of the basic components.

This is not as simple as the U.S. losing jobs to an overseas company

Tiahrt (R-Kansas) is also complaining about it. He represents Wichita, but Boeing has somewhat turned up their noses at Wichita. Boeing shifted their world headquarters from Wichita to Washington state.

Sorry, but your post doesn't address the full scope well enough.

[walldude]

14. How about because it's illegal not to mention stupid

to have another nation building our military equipment.

[FalconsRule]

16. Actually,

It's not illegal.

[walldude]

17. You're right, only illegal if it's classified equipment.. my bad

had to look it up. It remains however... stupid.

[FalconsRule]

18. Agreed!

[Angleae]

51. Is it.

The KC-45A will be assembled in Alabama and also consider the 767 has only about 50% of it's parts made in the country.

[FalconsRule]

59. It will be FLOWN to the US

for final "assembly".

[Angleae]

65. From wherever it is made

60% from within the US according to NG

[ThomWV]

21. Agree

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Indeed. Three cheers for Murtha. n/t

[opihimoimoi]

3. How much monies will actually go overseas to EADS? What will they do?

Why was the Boeing guys rejected? Did they bid 70 billion?

Something smells....

[AzDar]

4. If a U.S. military contract , funded by U.S. taxpayers, CAN be fulfilled entirely in the U.S,

it SHOULD be.

PERIOD.

[wuushew]

6. Do you object to the Canadian weapons supplied during the Vietnam war?

If all that material was supplied domestically the inflation and debt fallout from that conflict would be even greater.

Military spending is the least efficient use of money in existence. What are the advantages to going further in debt?

[AzDar]

10. I don't agree with excessive military spending PERIOD. However,

if something IS going to be produced for our military, all effort should be made to produce it domestically.

That seems to be keeping with basic tenets of common sense not only economically, but also from a national-security perspective.

It seems quite clear that Boeing had the capability of fulfilling the order, yet apparently didn't pay its expected GOP tithes.

[Romulox]

23. Nonsense. The Democractic party stands for "free trade", not "free trade as long as MY ox...

isn't being gored".

44,000 jobs in Washington state can't begin to compare to the 4 million manufacturing jobs lost to Democrat endorsed "free trade" with third world nations.

[AzDar]

24. So you're saying we shouldn't care?

:shrug:

For the record *this* Dem certainly doesn't subscribe to 'Free Trade'....

[Romulox]

28. Pretty much. How long did you expect to protect your own lifestyle

while everyone else has to "compete" with third world wages?:shrug:

It's just not realistic.

(Of course, I use "you" rhetorically; I am not accusing you, AzDar, of anything!)

[AzDar]

29. A little protectionism is a good thing.

We, as a country (thanks to GWB and those in collusion), are down, but not OUT.

Have you resigned yourself to a third-world existence, Romulox?

[Romulox]

34. So it's back to "As long as MY ox isn't being gored..." style economics, eh? nt

[AzDar]

38. Who says I have an ox? It isn't an all or nothing proposition....certainly 'Free Trade'

has run amok; however that trend doesn't have to continue. With a little common sense, there's no reason the U.S. can't participate in the global economy without taking it up the arse repeatedly, no?

Let's start, oh say....NOW.

[Romulox]

43. It's a common metaphor. It means that you approve of "free trade" when it's to your benefit

but you don't like it when it hurts your interests.

And no, nothing is "starting" now. Millions of jobs have been lost forever to free trade. The people who moved from lucrative careers in manufacturing into low-paying service jobs can't afford to pay the inflated wages demanded by American workers.


You can't demand "free trade" halt after I've lost my job, but before you lose your job. I can't afford to pay your inflated wages after taking a pay cut myself--it's simply too late to turn back now.

[AzDar]

45. What part of it aren't you getting? I don't subscribe to 'FreeTrade'.

You aren't really making a lot of sense, I'm afraid.

Peace.

[Romulox]

49. You don't. The Democratic Party DOES. nt

[LSK]

33. what are you talking about????

The democratic party stands for free trade???

We shouldnt protect jobs in America???

:wtf:

[Romulox]

36. Umm, NAFTA, WTO, MFN for China. Don't you remember the Clinton admin???

Did you miss the Gore/Perot debate in which Al Gore vigorously defended NAFTA?

For that matter, did you miss the "NAFTAgate" scandal this past week?

:wtf: indeed!

[LSK]

37. you have totally lost me now

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that the Democratic Party was defined ONLY by the Clinton era and not the 200+ years previous to it?????

[Romulox]

39. You might rejoin the conversation after reading up on some recent history then...nt

[Angleae]

52. 44000 jobs for the KC-767?

Boeing only employs 74160 in washington total for all programs (737,747,767,777,787,military).

[Romulox]

54. "Murray says a Boeing win would have created 44,000 U.S. jobs."

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN0560638020080305

[FalconsRule]

62. There are OTHER parts of the country

that will particpate and it's MORE than just the airframe. Sheesh!

[countryjake]

64. It is NOT just loss of jobs in WA...approximately 9000 would be affected in the Everett area...

the rest of that 44,000 figure represent others in the aerospace industry across America.

[PsN2Wind]

8. How about first

Congress puts in place a stringent anti-profiteering law. The military-industrial-complex seems to being doing quite well so ask them to "sacrifice" a bit be they foreign or domestic.

[ReformedChris]

11. How much is enough for Boeing?? They have the Lunar Mission Contract and the Dreamliner..

In addition to all of the military aircraft they produce. I like to see the most American jobs stay in America, but from an aeronautical point of view the Northrup design was far better. 25% more range, fuel capacity, and transport capabilities. The Northrop contract also helps my own state of Florida, which is hurting for these kind of high paying jobs in the midst of mininum wage Disney slave-labor jobs.

[FalconsRule]

13. What Northrup design?

You are aware these are Airbus tankers, correct?

[ReformedChris]

25. I know its a partnership, just forgot to put the EADS next to Northrup

Its simply a better design compared to the Boeing proposal. This deal is one of those things that deal with your own point of view. People in Washington State will be pissed at the loss of jobs while Alabama and Florida are grateful to have these jobs added.

[FalconsRule]

40. It is a LOT more US jobs total

if Boeing gets the deal. No WAY will Congress allow this to stand.

[Angleae]

55. What new jobs?

Are they going to expand the 767 production line. Probably not just extend it into the future.

[FalconsRule]

58. No since the AF needs them soon

they would have to expand it and keep it open.

[Angleae]

66. They don't have to expand it

It's a 10-15 year contract. They can make the planes already.

[genie_weenie]

15. Just another way the MIC has convinced the American People War creates wealth

and jobs while siphoning off Trillions of dollars. Including 3 Trillion during the Bush Regime.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/datespec.asp?dateAwarded=3/5/2008">$569,142,742 total defense contracts released today...

War is Prosperity.

[madrchsod]

19. this is only half the story---

the congress passed a law exempting several european countries from the previous 75 year old act that us military goods and services have to come from us suppliers first.

the defense dept was with-in all the letters of the law.

[FalconsRule]

20. They were indeed

But it was still a stupid decision and Congress WILL rectify it.

[Romulox]

22. LOL. How many of you outragistas drive Toyotas, Hondas, or VWs?

As many ignoramuses have pointed out to me right here on DU: there is no material difference between "assembling" a product in the US versus "manufacturing" a product in the US!

(Need I add: :sarcasm: ?)

[depakid]

31. Not to mention Boeing has been playing games with this for years

Anyone remember the lease (that should be "fleece") deal from a couple years ago....

[FalconsRule]

42. How many of our private cars

are bought with taxpayer dollars?

[Romulox]

44. What difference does that make?

We're not talking about military security issues. We're talking about economic security issues.

A Boeing worker doesn't "deserve" a job any more than a Ford worker.

[FalconsRule]

46. Actually we are talking military security issues

[Romulox]

47. To the extent that we are talking about "military security", the USAF has determined the Airbus

product to be superior.

Therefore, Boeing is arguing regarding the economic (and political) wisdom of the decision, not the military wisdom of the decision...

[FalconsRule]

50. So you're willing to risk

France shutting down tanker production if the US takes some action France doesn't agree with? I'm not.

[Romulox]

53. It would've been a BLESSING if that had happened prior to Iraq II! nt

[FalconsRule]

56. LOL

[jmowreader]

67. There's a very large difference between what Honda does and what Lockheed will do

Honda has a car factory in Ohio. When they opened it they got parts from Japan in containers, assembled the parts into cars and sent the cars to dealers. Now, they make most of the parts (including such large items as the engines) in the US.

In the Lockheed scenario, they plan to build the planes in France, where the Airbus factory already is, then fly them across the Atlantic and fit them out in Alabama.

[zbdent]

26. I thought the Republicans/Conservatives hated France ...

[blues90]

27. How about not building more crap for more wars ?

I could care less about anyone who works and gets paid to product anything that has to do with the war machine .

What we need are jobs and workers who do something good for the country who are paid well .

Enough of the tax payer money funds the war machine and everything else is just left to die .

[wuushew]

30. kick

:kick:

[LSK]

32. 2000 jobs in Florida vs how many elsewhere in the country??

Care to tell the rest of the story?

[FalconsRule]

41. 44,000 according to Patty Murray

[Angleae]

57. See posts 48, 51, 52, 55

[FalconsRule]

60. No thanks

I deal in facts. Not your opinions.

[Angleae]

61. This wouldn't have happened if boeing hadn't

sabotaged their bit. They figured because they were the american company they would automatically get the bid so they used it to prop up a failing aircraft. They didn't want to use the 787 because they would have to delay deliveries to commericial customers. They didn't want to use the 777 because they thought it was too big (and would have to delay commercial deliveries). So they used the 767 that NOBODY ELSE IS BUYING. They simply didn't want to shut down the production line (that costs money). On top of that they would have had the contract last year if they hadn't broken the law.

[FalconsRule]

63. The AF TOLD them the 777 was too big!

[MadMaddie]

69. Why don't you go after the real culprit McCain

Boeing won this contract years ago....McCain hates Boeing....and had the contract reviewed because he said the cost was too much and guess what France is building our AirForce Tankers.




OMB: AIR FORCE TANKER DEAL EXPENSE GREATLY OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS
May 7, 2002
Washington, DC - In response to a request by Senator John McCain, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels conducted an analyses of the Air Force tanker deal that would replace the entire KC-135E fleet with 100 Boeing 767 tanker aircraft at a cost of $26 billion, as passed by the Senate last year.

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=cfd196cc-fbc8-4e2c-a815-91c969081e72&Region_id=&Issue_id=e746bb72-1e36-422a-b205-848b7b33fae0

[L. Coyote]

70. R Politics behind the scene, and lots of $$$$ lobbyists, = Northrop Grumman = $101,390,474

The Corrupt Bastards Club, Defense Division?

RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM: Top Contributors #3 = Northrop Grumman $74,250
JERRY LEWIS: Top Contributors #4 = Northrop Grumman $78,250

opensecrets.org LOBBYING DATABASE Top Spenders #9 Northrop Grumman = $101,390,474

Alabama Sens. Shelby, Sessions, = TOP Senate Recipients of Funding From Missile Defense Contractors

Check out the details here:
U.S. Air Force Selects Northrop Grumman to Provide the New KC-45A Aerial Refueling Tanker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2947419