Back in 2002, the government announced a major contract with Boeing for production of new refueling tanker planes for billions of dollars.  The deal seemed strange — the government wasn't purchasing the tankers as it typically does, but rather leasing them.  The price of the tankers seemed excessive, and the deal was not done on a competitive bid.  In short, the plan was a windfall for Boeing, with the cost of course falling on American taxpayers.

Closer inspection revealed salacious details.  One of the lead Boeing lobbyists was Linda Daschle, wife of Tom Daschle, then-Senate Majority Leader.  Even further inspection led to the dismissal of Boeing's CEO and jail for the Air Force purchasing officer and a Boeing executive.  Critics of the deal were correct:  the contract was a classic example of government corruption.

Fast-forward six years, after the investigations are completed and the whole deal re-bid, this time competitively.  Boeing, which expected to win the bid, lost to a partnership consisting of American-based Northrup Grumman and Europe's Airbus consortium.  The resulting deal saves US taxpayers approximately $6 billion.

Immediately, howls of protest came up; from Boeing, of course, which had been confident they would win the bid.  But any issue in a presidential election year becomes fodder for presidential politics as well.  That Airbus is a European (largely French) company made the issue a perfect platform for the protectionists to raise the specter of relying on the French for outfitting our military, for supposedly shipping jobs overseas, and the usual anti-competition rhetoric.  Another wrinkle makes this perfect for the presidential campaign, however:  it was Republican nominee John McCain who led the charge against the original deal, starting the investigations that uncovered its corrupt nature and sending participants to jail.  Democrats, assisted by some protectionists on the right, want to blame McCain for the fact that Boeing lost the bid, and they are using anti-free market language to do so.  Of course, more importantly, they are also ignoring the facts and previous positions they have held.

Let's consider the facts for a moment.  As mentioned above, Airbus is partnering with an American company to supply the contract.  While many of the parts will be made in Europe, the tankers themselves will be assembled in Alabama, providing thousands of manufacturing jobs to that state.  That's hardly "shipping jobs overseas".  Many more thousand support jobs will be created by the deal, and Northrup Grumman (and its shareholders) will benefit from their role in the deal, creating further jobs.

Of course, had Boeing landed the deal, jobs would also have been created in the US.  However, military procurement is not for the purpose of creating jobs; rather, its purpose is (obviously) outfitting the military.  The government owes its citizens a military properly equipped but at the best price possible.  So long as the proper specifications are met, we should not spend one more dime of taxpayer money than is necessary.

One complaint against Airbus is that it receives financial support from the French and other governments.  If so, all the better:  this would mean that we've found a way to get the French to subsidize our own military.  That sounds like a problem for the French citizens, not American citizens.

Democrats have quarreled with the Bush Administration, sometimes justifiably so, concerning no-bid contracts, particularly with the military.  In this case, they should be jumping for joy, as not only was the contract awarded on an open-bid basis, but the underdog won.  The competitive nature of the award will send ripples through future bids, as all companies choosing to participate in the bid will realize that they aren't a shoo-in based solely on lobbying contacts and campaign contributions.  The winners in this aren't just Airbus, but the American military and the American taxpayers.