Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The hold placed on all Obama administration nominees is already perhaps the worst example of unprincipled hypocrisy in recent memory, but it's actually worse than it seems at first blush. Marcy Wheeler points out that one of the contracts he's trying to get redone to benefit Alabama would also mean taking a potentially huge contract away from an American company to give to a European one.
Now I'm not usually one to jump on the "buy American" bandwagon, but since right wing hacks like Shelby are constantly wrapping themselves in the flag and putting on ostentatious displays of "country first" patriotism, the hypocrisy should certainly be noted.
The key issue is that Shelby wants the Air Force to tweak an RFP for refueling tankers so that Airbus (partnered with Northrup Grumman) would win the bid again over Boeing. The contract had been awarded in 2008, but the GAO found that the Air Force had erred in calculating the award. After the Air Force wrote a new RFP in preparation to rebid the contract, Airbus calculated that it would not win the new bid, and started complaining. Now, Airbus is threatening to withdraw from the competition unless the specs in the RFP are revised.Essentially, then, Shelby's threat is primarily about gaming this bidding process to make sure Airbus-and not Boeing-wins the contract (there's a smaller program he's complaining about, too, but this is the truly huge potential bounty for his state).
I understand why any Senator would fight for jobs in his or her state. And I understand that there was dirty corruption in this original contracting process.
But underlying the refueling contract is the question of whether the US military ought to spend what may amount to $100 billion over the life of the contract with a foreign company, Airbus. Particularly a company that the WTO found preliminarily to be illegally benefiting from subsidies from European governments.
Richard Shelby is preparing to shut down the Senate to try to force the government to award a key military function to a foreign company.
And by the way, many Republicans in Congress threw a fit when this contract was initially given to Airbus, including Todd Tiahrt, a member of The Family.
Politics
Comments
During the Autumn of 2008 and the following winter we repeatedly saw southern conservative Republican senators vociferously advocate for policies that helped foreign car manufacturers in their state to the detriment of both American car manufacturers and the national security risks posed by severely crippling the American car manufacturer supply chain.
Consistent rhetoric based on sound economic policies tied to the national interest is not even remotely related to the positions now taken by the GOP.
On a good note, I read that Sen. Shelby has removed his hold.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 9:27 AM
I bet this jackass was among those who brayed against the French and "Old Europe" during the run up to the Iraq War. Also, so much for your pledges to support the troops and the American middle class. .
Posted by: History Punk | February 9, 2010 9:39 AM
Ed, I'm in the aircraft industry in Wichita, KS (yeah, I should get some sympathy...). This has been a huge deal around here for years, since most of the work would be done here by Boeing, if they won the contract.
I'm personally ambivalent, partly because I get tired of seeing Brownback and Tiarht constantly shilling for the local contracts. It should be a fair bid, with the lowest cost to the US government. If that happens to go to a foriegn gov, so be it. Wouldn't be so bad if those same douchnozzles were also speaking out against 'pork barrel' spending that everyone else does.
To be fair, given our current military, the US air force does need a new tanker. The average age of the current fleet of tankers is in the high 30s, with many aircraft approaching the 50 year mark.
The better solution would be to cutback our military presence worldwide and greatly reduce the need for these tankers.
Posted by: FastLane | February 9, 2010 9:54 AM
the air force tanker deal is such a confused mess of pork-earmarking and counter-earmarking it's hard to tell what the "honest" stance to take on it would be, or even if there is one. the damn contract's been rigged and counter-rigged so much by now that i'd be surprised if anything even vaguely useful ever came out of it any longer.
submitted for consideration: boeing partisans claim they had to lobby for it to be rigged their way so as to counteract the subsidies which airbus are getting from European governments to counteract the fact it doesn't have massive military contracts as a steady source of income, because boeing gets all those. don't even try to straighten such a rat's nest out, that way lies madness.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 9, 2010 10:02 AM
This is not a comment on this particular brouha. It just seems to me, from the outside (the United Kingdom) looking in, that the Senate's system, as it is currently set up, is corrupt and corrupting.
Posted by: JohnM1955 | February 9, 2010 10:20 AM
FastLane @ 3:
I would argue that it should go to the optimal bid, not the lowest cost. Looking merely at bids from a accounting/finance perspective often ignores the economic implications that might swing the net benefit to a pricier bid. For example, if the domestic manufacturer uses far more domestic Tier I, II, and III suppliers and then loses out on that bid to a foreign company using more foreign suppliers, the economic costs in lost federal and state revenues and increased expenditures on unemployment insurance, food stamps, and Medicaid, might result in the higher priced bid actually being a less costly choice when considering the economic ramifications.
Another perspective beyond "lowest cost" is the national security implications. I think there is still a requirement we maintain a viable manufacturing base in this country. It remains a key competitive advantage and I would argue still a necessity in any large-scale war. In fact I remain concerned that only one viable American manufacturer is able and/or willing to bid this project, that should be a concern to all of us.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 10:22 AM
according to the news this morning, Shelby has released his hold on "most" of the 70 nominees.
Posted by: becca | February 9, 2010 10:33 AM
So Shelby has been shamed into lifting the hold.
Perhaps this would make a good case study for dealing with Republicans.
Single out individuals, bury them in an unrelenting shit storm emphasizing populist hot buttons: sending American jobs overseas, wasting tax money, fighting against our military and earmarking billions of tax dollars as if they belong to Senator ***'s reelection committee.
Posted by: Dr X | February 9, 2010 12:03 PM
A friend of mine with a Masters in Aviation Management and a career in airport operations set me straight on the subsidy claims. Long before the tanker mess, in discussions about civil aviation contracts, it became very common to hear the whine that Airbus was subsidized by European governments while American manufacturers got no such support from the U.S. government. This is a horselaugh. Our civil aviation industries effectively get subsidized through the details buried in the military contracts that those companies also have. Our airliners aren't disadvantaged relative to Airbus airliners, we're just better than the Europeans at disguising our subsidies as other contracts and pretending we aren't doing it.
Posted by: EK | February 9, 2010 1:08 PM
As a British expat on the inside (well, inside the USA anyway) two words that increasingly springs to mind are unserious and laughingstock.
It simply should not be possible in a modern democratic institution to bring the business of governing to a grinding halt -- even for a day -- just because one member of the Senate, one who is not even in the majority party has a hissy fit because he's not getting his own way over something.
Of course, I admit I was happily cheering along when the Democrats were the ones pulling these stunts during the Bush years, but I now see that the escalation of these tactics that has occurred over the last 20-30 years is, in the long run, severely damaging American democracy.
It's getting to the point where it's impossible to get anything serious done at all. When are they ever going to get anything substantial done on reforming health care, social security, energy policy, immigration, or any number of other critical issues when every time it's attempted, a single senator can bring the whole process of legislating to a standstill?
In the last 30 years, the British Parliament has completely overhauled the British system, from the mass privatisations under Margaret Thatcher to the sweeping government reforms -- devolution, the House of Lords, the central bank, and the Judiciary, and more -- under Tony Blair. What has the American Senate done in that time? Failed to reform healthcare -- several times -- failed to reform a failing social security system, failed to deal with mass illegal immigration, failed to deal with the stunningly shameful state of the criminal justice system -- and so on. I guess they have gone to war three times...
I used to think that gridlock had its place -- a lot of Americans claim they like it this way because they believe that the less government does the better. The thing is, it's not that the government goes away, it's still there, as big and expensive as ever. The gridlock simply means that it becomes impotent when faced with major crises like those I mentioned.
Sure, some of the British reforms I listed were deeply unpopular with certain sections of the public, but you know what? At least the British public is able to see what the governing party really stands for since they are actually able to put the majority of their policies into action. If the public decides that they don't like it, they can throw them out in the next election.
I don't know how they're going to fix this in the US. I wonder if some kind of constitutional reform to modernize government isn't necessary at this point, not that it will ever happen of course.
Posted by: tacitus | February 9, 2010 2:32 PM
Michael Heath @6: what he said. Outsourcing to other countries, especially in our current economic climate, simply because they make a marginally lower top level bid is about the worst thing we can do. Plus the National Security angle - we've lost too much capability already. Our ability to design and build complex high tech stuff is our economic foundation and strength. We lose that, we lose everything. Although that might fix the perceived "immigration problem" - just thinkin'.
Also tacitus @10 (fellow expat) with "It simply should not be possible in a modern democratic institution to bring the business of governing to a grinding halt -- even for a day -- just because one member of the Senate, one who is not even in the majority party has a hissy fit because he's not getting his own way over something."
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | February 9, 2010 3:09 PM
http://www.whnt.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-senator-blocking-nominations,0,550193.story
This story looks like it's over. Or am I reading this article wrong?
Posted by: Phil | February 9, 2010 3:56 PM
I also agree with Michael, The benefits of awarding the contract to a US based company has to far outweigh the possible difference in price. Of course you still have to keep them honest when there is only one suitable contractor available. Furthermore I would have thought that it would be extremely difficult for a foreign company to get a US military contract when a US supplier exists.
Posted by: Doug Little | February 9, 2010 4:51 PM
Posted by: llewelly | February 9, 2010 7:46 PM
Representative Todd Tiahrt, from Kansas, has been fighting for a clean, honest contract and bid system, from the beginning.
The Airbus deal requires longer runways, new hangers, new service vehicles, new ground crew equipment.
Airbus will be far more expensive, and will NOT be good for America.
Also, there is nothing wrong with figuring in the "cost" in NOT hiring United States workers. When you employ Americans, they will PAY TAXES on their income!
Posted by: Paul Rosell | February 10, 2010 10:44 AM
"This is not a comment on this particular brouha. It just seems to me, from the outside (the United Kingdom) looking in, that the Senate's system, as it is currently set up, is corrupt and corrupting."
The UK has plenty of military procurement problems of its own. (BAE, etc).
Posted by: Jon H | February 10, 2010 3:17 PM