Chalk Another One Up For Obamacare
Oct 19, 2010 Political
Boeing mailed a letter to its employees detailing increases in their health care costs as a result of Obamacare. The company provides very nice plans and under Obamacare they would be considered “Cadillac” plans and subject to the 40% tax the law places on such plans. The increase is expected to affect 90,000 NONUNION employees. Remember, the unions carved out a nice deal in one of the smoke filled back rooms.
This is the second of three reasons the company is changing the way it pays for health care. The others would have been there regardless but the 40% tax weighs heavily on any business. If you want less of something, tax it. We see that here.
Boeing is another in an ever growing list of companies that are either cutting or changing their health care plans as a result of Obamacare. As I see it, the employees will have one of three options.
They can join the union and enjoy the special carve-out (a desired effect of the con game).
They can pay the increase and be thankful they were able to keep what they have.
Or they can vote the miserable pukes who gave us this mess out of office.
90,000 votes can make a big difference in many districts.
Obamacare, not what it was hyped up to be.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: boeing, health care increases, obamacare, unions
Blame Boeing, not McCain for Loss of Contract
Mar 8, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier about the contract for the military’s refueling tanker and how that contract went to a French company. I did not debate the merits of the contract and instead chose to focus on the outrage expressed over the loss of jobs in America because the contract was not awarded to Boeing. The members of Congress who object to the contract are doing so based upon the loss of jobs and they are still at it only this time they are pointing their fingers at John McCain because he was responsible for nixing the tanker contract with Boeing in the past. The politicians are trying to use the actions of McCain against him in the upcoming presidential election and many union members as well as Boeing employees are joining the bandwagon.
I wrote before and I stick to my point that government contracts should not be awarded based upon the number of jobs they provide and to whom those jobs go. The Pentagon is responsible for ensuring our troops get the best possible equipment regardless of who provides it. The idea that the Pentagon and its contracts are some sort of social welfare is ridiculous. As I stated, I do not debate the merits of the contract because I do not know them. My friend Trip at Webloggin wrote an excellent piece indicating why the contract was a bad one and the potential problems that lie ahead. If members of Congress focused on the points Trip made then I would see their point. The prattle dealing with jobs is not an argument I care to hear because it is irrelevant. Certainly Trip has valid points about the economy but they cannot be the sole reason for the contract. If there are problems with the products and the methods, it is one thing but building the economy or providing jobs is quite another.
Of course, our economy is in a slow down so any chance to cry about jobs is one that Congress jumps at. The same people who are crying about lost jobs are the ones who utter nary a word with regard to all the jobs that ILLEGALS are taking from US citizens. If they close the border and get rid of the ILLEGALS there will be plenty of jobs. I realize the jobs involved are skilled and that Mexicans are taking few, if any, of those. However, John McCain is not the reason those jobs are going to France (but he is responsible for the jobs lost to Mexicans). Boeing is solely responsible for the loss of the contract because the company engaged in illegal activity to get the contract and John McCain caught it and ended it. McCain should be praised for halting corruption.
McCain called such criticism off base.
“In all due respect to the Washington delegation, they vigorously defended the process before – which turned out to be corrupt – which would have cost the taxpayers more than $6 billion and ended up with people in federal prison,” he said. “I’m the one that fought against that … for years and brought down a corrupt contract.”
Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract – not McCain.
“This was theirs from day one,” he said. “This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke.” My Way News
Boeing executives broke the law and that cost them the contract. That is the bottom line and no amount of finger pointing can change that fact. As McCain points out, many of the people criticizing him are the same ones who went along with the original, illegal, contract. He was the one who stopped it. In other words, the members crying about jobs were more than happy to overlook corruption in order for Boeing to gain the contract and keep jobs here in the US. That is business as usual in Congress and I would bet if we looked at other contracts there is plenty of corruption and these very members were aware and condoned it. I thought that at one time there was talk about denying any company involved in illegal contracting procedures the right to bid on contracts for some period of time. If they had something like that in place perhaps Boeing would not have been able to bid on it at all.
I have problems with John McCain but in this instance I side with him. The money for this contract comes from taxpayers and we deserve to have the money that is extorted from us spent wisely. Corrupt contracts and corrupt politicians cause the need for more money and fuels the Democrat’s desire to raise taxes. People should take a good, hard look at the folks who are upset with McCain and decide if they are the kind of people who are best suited to be good stewards of our money. I think not.
Regardless of how this plays out and regardless of how many fingers get pointed, one thing is for sure, creating jobs is not a valid argument for awarding a contract.
Tags: boeing, contract, corruption, economy, jobs, McCain, tanker
The Pentagon is not the Welfare Department
Mar 2, 2008 Military, Political
The Pentagon recently awarded a contract for air tankers, the huge aircraft that conduct in-flight refuel operations. The award went to a group with French connections and the airframe is the French Airbus. The group, Northrop Grumman/EADS, beat out Boeing for the contract. There are several lawmakers who are upset with the Pentagon’s decision to select the EADS group over Boeing.
I don’t know the particulars of the deal and I am not familiar with the company that makes the Airbus. That seems to be a decent airframe and considering that Boeing was opting to use an airframe that was older and being retired, the EADS groups seems a sensible choice. If Boeing wins the contract and uses an older airframe that no one else uses, then there is a lot of potential for abuse in the supply of parts. There might also be a problem getting parts at a reasonable cost, or at all.
Several Republicans have indicated that they want to be debriefed on the selection and are upset Boeing did not win.
“We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” said Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt.
“I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs.”
Boeing, the second leading US defense contractor after Lockheed Martin, had been considered the heavy favorite for the contract and according to its website is the largest employer in Kansas.
Perhaps Representative Tiahrt (from Kansas) should look at the contract. Part of the aircraft will be assembled in Alabama and will create 300 jobs there and Northrop claims that 25,000 jobs will be created in the US. However, even if the airplane was going to be completely built in France, why should that matter. The goal of the defense department is to procure the best equipment at the best price from all available sources. The Pentagon is not a social welfare program where contracts are awarded on the basis of how many jobs Americans will be provided. My advice to these companies and these politicians who are upset about this is start building good products at a reasonable cost and you will win the contracts. The DOD should not be required to buy from companies that have screwed over the taxpayer before or have built inferior products. In other words, Todd, the DOD is not in the business of “creating” jobs.
Boeing paid a $615 million settlement to the government in 2003 for procurement fraud. Additionally, their choice of airframes means the government would be the sole consumer of parts because the airframe will retire. A system like this is wide open for corruption and price overruns. Even without corruption, if one company is the only one making parts that the government [contractor] needs and the government is the only that needs them, this company can really have an impact on the price which in turn affects maintenance costs.
I know that these members of Congress like to see contract awarded to companies in their districts so that their constituents get jobs and they can crow about creating them. However, when taxpayer money is being used then the contracting office has an obligation to be fiscally responsible and ensure that contracts are awarded to the company that can provide the best service at the best cost. Sometimes it costs more for quality so price should never be the sole factor however, how many jobs it brings to America should not play into the equation unless one of our enemies is the only other entity that can provide what we need.
I will say it once again. If American companies want to win contracts here in America then they need to build quality products at competitive prices. If they have to build in costs to cover union workers, benefits and all kinds of other overhead then they are going to lose. This is particularly true about a company like Boeing that decided to use an airframe that is near the END of its useful life rather than thinking about the future.
Did Boeing think they had this one in the bag because of some shady back room discussions? It does not matter because the Pentagon selected the company they thought best to build the tankers. Once the politicians can figure out that the Department of Defense is not a social welfare program and that it is not designed to give jobs to Americans then perhaps things will start to run more efficiently. One thing is certain, members of Congress should keep their noses out of the procurement process. There are skilled contract people who deal with this so let them do their jobs. They are, after all, more disinterested than a Congressman trying to get reelected.
Besides, if there are people out there who think the DOD is in the business of creating jobs, you are in luck. The DOD has a great job program. All it takes is a visit to your local military recruiter.
Sources:
Breitbart
The Weekly Standard