Herald Editorial Board

• Bob Bolerjack, Opinion Editor
bolerjack@heraldnet.com

• Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer
cmacpherson@ heraldnet.com

• Allen Funk, Herald Publisher
funk@heraldnet.com

• Kim Heltne, Assistant to the Publisher
heltne@heraldnet.com
Send letters to the editor by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206.

| |
| WEEK IN REVIEW |
 |
| Saturday |
| • |
Fears over commercial air service at Paine Fiel... |
| • |
Gift charity draws Snohomish County families in... |
| • |
Donated safe gives Marysville museum a mystery |
 |
| Friday |


|
| • |
From behind bars, pal tells Colton Harris-Moore... |
| • |
Commercial airlines would cause few problems at... |
| • |
Fund set up to benefit children of couple kille... |
 |
| Thursday |


|
| • |
5 die of swine flu in Snohomish County |
| • |
Red Cross honors acts of heroism, many by ordin... |
| • |
Barista clothing rules delayed by County Council |
 |
| Wednesday |


|
| • |
Father gets 13 years in 6-year-old's fatal shoo... |
| • |
‘One bad choice' blamed in death of 4 fri... |
| • |
Reps. Larsen, Inslee split on Obama's plans for... |
 |
| Tuesday |


|
| • |
Lynnwood swimmer turns therapy into competitive... |
| • |
Highway 9 crash is worst alcohol-related accide... |
| • |
Crash victim warned his students against DUI |
 |
| Monday |


|
| • |
Victims of Highway 9 crash ID'd; suspect booked... |
| • |
Suspect in officer killings eludes law in Seattle |
| • |
New laws for Snohomish County bikini baristas? |
 |
| Sunday |


|
| • |
Extended lack of work takes its toll on Snohomi... |
| • |
Four die in car crash near Marysville |
| • |
Gathering in Tacoma mourns slain Lakewood officers |
| |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
Editorials
|
|
| |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
| |
 |
| HAVE YOUR SAY |
| Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. |
| You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. |
| Send it to: |
| E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com |
Mail: Letters section
The Herald
P.O. Box 930
Everett, WA 98206 |
| Fax: 425-339-3458 |
| Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472). |
| |
Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tanker deal leaves U.S. looking pretty foolish
In agreeing to buy refueling tankers from a European company instead of Boeing, the Pentagon has put the United States government at odds with itself.
U.S. trade representatives continue to pursue a case before the World Trade Organization, arguing that European government subsidies to Airbus violate WTO fair-trade rules. One particularly harmful subsidy -- which went to the A330, upon which the Air Force now wants its next-generation tankers built -- reimburses Airbus' startup costs should a particular model fail financially, allowing Airbus to launch new lines virtually risk-free. It's hard to imagine a more anti-competitive strategy.
Yet as one arm of the U.S. government rightly pursues remedies for such illegal activity, another -- the Department of Defense -- is agreeing to spend up to $40 billion in taxpayer money on a European company's ill-gotten gains.
"We look a little foolish right now, in my estimation," U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen said Tuesday after raising the conundrum with Air Force officials during a committee hearing.
And according to Boeing, which officially protested the Air Force/Airbus deal on Tuesday, the procurement process was "seriously flawed" in several other ways. The company claims the Air Force changed the rules during the process, resulting in "selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering."
The choice of the A330, which is larger than the 767, surprised most observers partly because it was soundly rejected by Air Force officials in 2002. Reasons cited by the Air Force then were that the A330 took up 81 percent more ground space than the existing tankers, without a commensurate increase in refueling capacity; that it would demand a greater infrastructure investment than the 767, and would "dramatically limit the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment." What changed?
The General Accounting Office, which has 100 days to investigate the procurement process and rule on Boeing's protest, has that and plenty of other questions to answer.
Meanwhile, Larsen's observation is a good one: This case has left the U.S. government looking more than a little foolish. The government's trade-policy objectives shouldn't be undercut by one of its own agencies. Congress and the Bush administration need to get to work on that.
|
| 2
- Top 10 Stories Most Talked about |
| 3
- Top 10 Stories Most Emailed |
|
|
|
|
|