A central theme of this blog has always been that the tanker issue is not really about Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman or Boeing vs. the USAF, but in fact Boeing and US aerospace workers vs. Airbus and the illegal subsidies it receives.
At Tanker War Blog we contend that the US government has a duty to balance the promotion of free trade with enforcement of free trade. Blindly clinging to the idea that competition and market forces will result in fair trade is folly. Competition doesn't work when the playing field is tilted toward one side or one of the competitors is given an unfair advantage.
Some of us at TWB had hoped that the Executive Branch would realize its mistake in buying an illegally subsidized product like the EADS/Airbus A330 and stop the tanker contract. But others here, who have long since lost faith in US trade policy, have pointed out that even when the administration seemingly stands up for fair trade it may in fact be just lining insider's pockets.
A case in point is the 2006 timber trade settlement with Canada. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer in a recent article by Robert McClure asks the question:
At Tanker War Blog we contend that the US government has a duty to balance the promotion of free trade with enforcement of free trade. Blindly clinging to the idea that competition and market forces will result in fair trade is folly. Competition doesn't work when the playing field is tilted toward one side or one of the competitors is given an unfair advantage.
Some of us at TWB had hoped that the Executive Branch would realize its mistake in buying an illegally subsidized product like the EADS/Airbus A330 and stop the tanker contract. But others here, who have long since lost faith in US trade policy, have pointed out that even when the administration seemingly stands up for fair trade it may in fact be just lining insider's pockets.
A case in point is the 2006 timber trade settlement with Canada. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer in a recent article by Robert McClure asks the question:
Is it an illegal $1 billion slush fund for Bush administration friends in the timber industry, extorted from Canada and designed to evade congressional oversight?
Or is it a fairly negotiated end to an expensive trade war that's "the best thing that has happened to private forest land conservation in the United States in 100 years?"
Given that at least one of the groups to receive money from the settlement, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities ($200 million), was hastily set up during the settlement and established just before the deal was finalized, it is probably right to ask these questions. The article also notes that the deal was monitored by Harriet Myers, then still the President's chief lawyer, so suspicions should be heightened all the more.
At Tanker War Blog we believe our government should stand for fair trade and look after the interests of US workers and consumers in trade disputes and not just industry and party insiders. We firmly believe this is also what the American people want.
We further believe that if there was proper enforcement of free trade EADS would never have been allowed participate in the tanker contract.
At Tanker War Blog we believe our government should stand for fair trade and look after the interests of US workers and consumers in trade disputes and not just industry and party insiders. We firmly believe this is also what the American people want.
We further believe that if there was proper enforcement of free trade EADS would never have been allowed participate in the tanker contract.
It is also becoming clearer to us that only Congress has the will and the ability to properly solve disputes such as the tanker controversy.
Stumble It!