Mike,making an argument in favor of shipping jobs "across the pond?"  Absolutely, if it's the right thing to do.

I'm a Republican.  I'm a purist conservative.  I believe in what the Republican Party was originally based on: smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, minimized meddling in the affairs of the people, and leaving most decision-making to the state and municipal governments, among many other things.  But we also see the need for strong domestic businesses and a simple economy that desires healthy, legal competition and fair prices.  Unfortunately, the "conservative base" has been left behind by the Republican politicians.  Man, do I ever hate politicians.

I'm driving to a point here: Boeing recently lost a military contract to develop a new line of refueling aircraft to a conglomerate known as EADS — which includes French company Airbus (they, of the Airbus 380 double-decker luxury airliner fame).  Hoo-boy, was the "political right" up in arms about that one.  And so were the Democrats.  To them, it was the equivalent of outsourcing jobs for pennies on the dollar.

This is where the politics come in to play: people looked at the 35,000-foot view (given that this is about aircraft, I swear that was an unintended pun) of the situation: a French company would be building U.S. military aircraft.  How rude.  How cruel.  How Un-American.  How soooo not-apple-pie.

But for the people with their heads on ground-level, and facing the right direction, this was the right thing to do.  First of all, this isn't about shipping jobs overseas; in fact, EADS has promised to build the aircraft, or at least large portions, in a plant they agreed to build in Alabama as part of the contract.  The contract is actually listed under Northrop-Grumman, a long-time defense contractor who will likely be providing a majority of the avionics.  Guess where N.G. is based?  Yup, here in the states.  In fact, the only thing Airbus is providing, as best as I can tell, is the airframe — the "body," basically.

The reasons go beyond this, though.  For one thing, Airbus has, as of late, built a higher-quality aircraft at a more-bang-for-your-tax-dollar price.  On top of that, Boeing won the original contract in a no-bid situation that ultimately led to the dismissal of several top executives who got in deep, steaming crap for conflicts of interest — basically, they did things to win the contract essentially just to line their own pockets.  When all this came to light, several in Washington successfully had the contract nullified and the bidding was re-opened, this time with Airbus allowed to play the game.

Here's where the Democrats had a field day: People working for John McCain, the Republican nominee for the Presidential election this fall, were in the group lobbying to have the contract re-opened.  By picking and choosing their facts, they made it sound as if McCain had lobbied to outsource the program.  In reality, his people lobbied in 2004 to have the Boeing contract overturned because of the impropriety of the entire situation.  He wasn't lobbying in favor of a foreign company, he was lobbying against unfair business practices.  And I don't care who you are; you should be ashamed to call yourself a Republican — or a Democrat, or an American, for that matter — if you can actively and openly support unfair business activities.  We built this nation on fair, open trade and markets and healthy competition for customers, even if that customer is the nation itself.

And here's my final point on the matter: Boeing has had a strong upperhand in military contracts for a long time now, ever since N.G. was purchased by EADS.  They have dominated the U.S. airliner market because of the relatively low cost of aircraft in comparison to overseas competitors due to a weakening dollar and other economic factors.  They have become complacent, and quality has begun to suffer.  Ingenuity has fallen by the wayside, the victim of such large dominance in domestic markets.  If you want another example of this, look to Redmond, Washington, where Microsoft has supplied inferior products for years, simply because they are so ingrained in our American culture that the cost of replacing them in the infrastructure is prohibitive.  When competition is severely crippled, and you have the luxury of forced customer "loyalty," quality is generally the first victim.  By awarding the contract to Airbus, the U.S. government has — intentionally or not — quietly but sternly told Boeing that they now have to earn their contracts on quality, not past reputation and "friends in high places."

I don't care what side of the political fence you are on; if you can't see the good in this situation after examining the facts, you simply don't understand the original goal of our founding fathers to create a fair, free nation, free from political squabbling.  And it's the blurred vision we've developed toward that original concept that is now hindering this nation locally and abroad.   It's time to get back to basics, to understand that Capitalism is only good and successful when it is executed fairly, without underhanded favors.