Got an extra $35 billion laying around?

[unhappycamper]

Senators blast Donley, Schwartz on KC-X process
By Scott Fontaine - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 20:33:48 EDT

The Air Force secretary and chief of staff defended the service’s KC-X tanker selection process amid blistering criticism from lawmakers who charged illegal European government subsidies have given EADS the edge over its competitor, Boeing.

Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., grilled Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz about a March ruling by the World Trade Organization that declared subsidies to Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, are illegal and have harmed Boeing.

The furor over the WTO ruling is the latest twist in the contentious competition for a $35 billion contract for the next-generation of refueling tankers. The quest to replace the Air Force’s KC-135s already has resulted in contracts being awarded twice and then terminated after protests from the losing side.

In this third attempt to select a contractor, the Air Force decided in March to extend the bidding window by 60 days to allow EADS to compete — a move the senators, speaking at Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, said showed preferential treatment toward EADS. The WTO ruling raised questions about whether EADS should even be in the competition, they said.

“I want to know how you can assure American taxpayers that they won't be spending money to support an illegally subsidized company that one part of our government, the (U.S. Trade Representative), has already declared harmful to American jobs,” Murray asked Donley.

[Scuba]

1. What? This must be a typo....

..."I want to know how you can assure American taxpayers that they won't be spending money to support an illegally subsidized company that one part of our government, the (U.S. Trade Representative), has already declared harmful to American jobs". This is coming from Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Seems contrary to the traditional way these contracts are awarded, where the American people get screwed and the big corporations steal a few billion more.

[Statistical]

2. Welll at least we usually get some jobs out of the equation.

If contract goes overseas we buy billions of military hardware (no reduction in spending), all the profits go to foreign country, and all jobs go to foreign citizens.

If EADS wants a military contract how about they get their own govt to come up with the money.