As the national media awake to the Air Force tanker flap, much of the tone mirrors that of the New York Times’ editorial, which concluded: “For Congress to reverse the decision on ‘Buy America’ grounds would be bad for taxpayers: requiring them to pay for aircraft that provide less value for the money. It would also be bad diplomacy and bad business. And that can’t be good for the country.”Meanwhile, the contract is fast becoming a partisan issue, and part of the presidential campaign, because of GOP candidate John McCain’s role in nixing the lease deal in 2004 and setting the rules for the do-over that went Airbus’ way. “Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. “We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it.”
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JMWalker on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- lindainks55 on Point is that Fahnestock would pay
- Regular on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- Regular on Dancing with the governor
- JMWalker on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- Regular on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- KansasNative on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- Boxlock on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- JMWalker on Dancing with the governor
- lindainks55 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
92 Comments
No. You are providing our service men and women a better product AND saving the taxpayers money.
win-win.
Approve of how “things” are going in America? Vote McBush this fall! In the meantime — be afraid, very afraid! No matter the situation or the question, just BE VERY AFRAID!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982105/posts
linda, El-Keeta’s behind ya…run, hide, hoard!!!
Joshin’ at ya, linda. I know ya better’n that.
Health care costs can be huge and for DoD to include them as part of the costs in the American (Boeing) bid for the contract, was just wrong. Especially, when France’s Health Care is paid for by their government. The cost of the state health provided by France, should have been calculated in the bid calculations.
Changing horses in midstream was wrong as well. When Boeing though that the Air Force wanted the smaller sized tanker, Boeing put in a bid for that. Only to find out that the Air Force had changed the requirement to include the Airbus larger version.
Having the basic airframe (costs and materials) tied to the Euro, is an extremely bad idea.
How about having some French Engineers coming over and speaking fluent English and in American Engineering terms trying to address issues that may pop up when problems arise? Rosetta Stone for the masses…
Or, when France disagrees with a policy of the United States, the workers at the EADs plant supplying the Air Frames will walk out in protest and production will cease. The French will still get paid - no worries.
How about not build the tankers at all? With over 50% of our nation’s budget going to the military it’s time to make some cutbacks.
While America builds for more war (McCain would be happy with another 100 years of war) foreign countries are building power plants in America. Spain is building the largest solar plant, Denmark is opening up a windmill factory in Colorado, Germany is coming in to build another one. Yet we are paying people $450 million to not build military naval vessels and wasting billions building tankers to aid in bombing third world countries.
An interesting perspective on the tanker deal, which notes the reliance of Boeing on foreign suppliers. He also notes that Boeing is carefully avoiding the adjective “American” in describing its tanker based on the 767 in its public statements.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db2008039_257094.htm
Vaughn, never allow the truth to get in the way of a good story. Hell, it worked great for Shakespeare. It was pretty much a given that very little of ‘American’ products are American, anyway. I’d assume little to none of the avionics or control systems are American built.
But … VT … but …
Didn’t Tankerless Todd squeal about that being all-American?
Ben, was that what he was attempting to articulate? I must have just considered it noise, and disregarded.
Ok Democrats
If Todd Tiahrt is to blame here, how about the Congressional delegation from the State of Washington, which includes many Democrats?
How about Senator Obama, who represents the Boeing International Headquarters?
McCain said he is keeping an open mind on the contract, but in the past he has boasted about his role in blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. The deal was killed in 2004 after a former Boeing executive improperly recruited an Air Force official while she was still overseeing contracts involving prospective Boeing deals. The former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing’s chief executive and several top Air Force officials.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5603827.html
said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. “We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it.”
In this instance, McCain’s participation in this is being greatly spun. He did not demand that the Air Force award the contract to Northrup, he just demanded that their be a fair bidding process after the scandalous actions of Boeing and the Air Force in 2004.
The United States Government currently has a WTO complaint filed, against Airbus, for unfair trade practices and unfair subsidies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/business/worldbusiness/16airbus.html?ex=1321333200&en=2ccc83319ae105f9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
How can we award a contract to a company, from one government department, while complaining against the “unfair” subsidies, given to that SAME company, at the WTO?
uh, Econ, I think the point is, there is no point to this thread. It’s a non-issue. It has no relevance. If boing (sic) got the contract, as much or more of your hard earned dollars would be going overseas. The only way it actually effects you is if you happen to have stock in Boing or one of the companies it farms to. I don’t, so no issue. But you’re welcome to kvetch about how we’re stealing all your money all you want.
I know I am sounding unAmerican, but again I point out that Boeing and the Air Force had 2 people go to JAIL over the underhanded dealings, so why would the U.S. Gov’t award a huge contract to criminals?
I was researching the same, TDT when my browser froze.
TDT-
I guess they wouldn;t since those criminals are, or were,in jail and do not work for Boeing.
LJ - My point is that Boeing apparently promotes these underhanded tactics. That’s the way it seems to me at least. I find myself in a weird position defending McCain, never thought that would happen, but I think he did the right thing pushing to start the bidding over and demanding that there was at least one other bidder.
ghot
HOGWASH! The Kansas delegation and the Washington State delegation are both upset because this deal WILL cost American jobs.
The Airplane, itself, will be built in Europe, under the Northrup/EADs deal.
You are wrong. There is FAR more American production involved, in the Boeing deal, than in the Northrup/EADs deal.
Hey, if the first Boeing Tanker deal could be stopped, this one can be stopped.
It should be stopped!
And yes, I am usually a “free trade” kind of guy.
But, I am sympathetic to the “fair trade” arguments.
Airbus IS violating “free trade” agreements. Airbus should NOT be rewarded, by the US Air Force, for those very same violations!
If most of you liberals were in the State of Washington, represented by Democrats?
You would be mad at the Air Force!
Instead, you want to blame Tiahrt, because you are being partisan!
Econ, you must’ve missed Vaughn’s link above. It’s something a thinking person assumed anyway. Reguardless, I’d have to cite Vaughn’s credibility rating somewhere near infinity next to yours.
TDT_
I understand your comment. How many “corrupt” EADS events you think there are? Why is the supposition of some that only AMERICAN companies have dubious dealings? EADS should not have been awarded the contract, at least until the WTO suit had been settled. It’s just as easy to say EADS is violating the trade laws, no?
Like I said, it doesn’t effect me, and I seriously doubt it effects anyone not having stock in Boing or its farm hands.
Paul - I don’t think that Obama ran again and again on the basis that he had all the inside conenctions to bring that bacon back home. TTT did.
Outta curiosity, why all of a sudden, after 7 LONG stinkin’ years are you so concerned with what’s ‘right and fair’? Where were you for the last 7 stinkin’ years? It’s only ok when it pads your pocket?
It’s a non-issue. They’re going to do what pads THEIR pocket, and they really don’t give a rat’s (!) about you!
LJ - IMO, the difference between the suit against EADS and the scandal with Boeing is that so far, it’s just a suit. There has been no finding of wrongdoing by EADS at this point. However, their was finding of wrongdoing on the part of Boeing, and one went to jail, and several others resigned. This time around Boeing may have gotten a raw deal, but I just can’t bring myself to feel too sorry for them. It might be because my dad retired from Cessna, and so I always thought of Boeing and it’s workers as whiners, always striking, never happy with what they have. I have a little bit of a prejudice against Boeing.
ghotiphaze
I am not sure whom you are addressing, but I have to agree with your LAST statement. That includes politicians of all stripes. They don;t give a damn about you, Democrat or Republican
TDT - I agree and would add that when I lived in Los Angeles I knew people at Lockheed who were constantly getting screwed because Boeing was somehow magically always picked for government contracts. Seems Boeing had someone inside even back then.
TDT-
Just google EADS and scandals. You’ll find plenty. At least you admit your bias. I have worked in the aerospace industry for nearly 30 years. There are lots of politics (and probably greased palms) in every major military contract awarded. I choose to give the benefit to Boeing, and American company, and in my opinion, the best airplane. You dislike Boeing, so are not unhappy with giving the contract to EADS. NOtwithstanding that as I understand it, the EADS aircraft will not even fit in most of the hangers that are supposed to support it. If Boeing lost on real terms, fine. At the same time, please do not argue about Wal-MArt, because they give the lowest price for the perchandise that fits the customers needs, or about American companies outsourcing work to the lowest priced labor.
LJ, that was addressed to econ. You seem to try to be fair minded.
Really, I’d been intending to apologize to you re: my last post a couple weeks ago before taking a hiatus. It actually wasn’t directed at you, and I realize it was rambling (that’s what happens when you try to condense a 100 page disertation into a 100 word post, especially fueled by passion), it was directed at all the mono-railed mentalities on these boards whose philosophy is, “MY WAY or noway!!!”
Actually, Vaughn has over time brought up a few items causing me to be more tolerant to the Rep viewpoint. Then again Econ and ilk have caused me to be a LOT more supportive of the Dems.
First, Boeing parts are produced all over the world, as are Airbus parts.
Second, Airbus has a division right here in Wichita, and plans to produce the tanker in partnership with an American company.
Third, as far as saving money, how much of the cost of the Boeing model would have been spent on kickbacks and bribes to government and pentagon officials? Boeing has a poor record on that score!
Sounds to me like Tiahrt’s main problem with the contract is that now he can’t claim credit for getting it for Boeing. Bye bye lobbyists, bye bye voters, hello having to work for a living!
It’s no big secret that all the defense contractors hired retired military folks; Boeing just seemingly hired former USAF folks on a larger scale, as memory serves. Nothing in and of itself wrong with that, so long as the rules are followed, but when things go beyond the pale, as occurred in 2004, there are reprecussions.
The lease deal was a bad deal from the vantage point of the taxpayer, as, IIRC, the same was going to cost multiples of millions of dollars more over the life of the contract than a purchase. That’s what, again IIRC, got Sen. McCain interested on what was going on between Boeing and the USAF back then, and what led to the rebid.
Ben-
When is the last time Lockheed made an aircraft comparable to any of Boeings pre-MCConald Douglas merge? Successful Lockheed projects =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_aircraft
ghotiphaze
“Really, I’d been intending to apologize to you re: my last post a couple weeks ago before taking a hiatus. It actually wasn’t directed at you, and I realize it was rambling (that’s what happens when you try to condense a 100 page disertation into a 100 word post,”
Not a problem. I don;t even remember the incident. We all need to be able to disagree, and do so with at least some modicum of sensibilities.
Sometimes, our passsions get the best of us, as we are at the last, human.
To be honest, Lockheed didn’t make a good impression with the SR-71 contract (Blackbird Reconnaissance.)
That dripping piece of exotic texture bunny cost more to keep in maintained that it did to build it.
LJ - I did as you suggested and looked up EADS and scandal. It seems Boeing and EADS are 2 peas in a pod. Guess if you’re going to award a contract to crooks, it might as well be “American” crooks.
Hey
“protectionism” is, usually, a DEMOCRAT viewpoint.
I am making the case that “Free Trade” requires some rules.
I am making the case that Airbus is violating the rules.
I am also making the case that the US Government would get a “kick back” of sorts, on a deal like this, in that tax revenue would be generated by these jobs.
If I get a “rebate” on a new computer, from the manufacturer, shouldn’t I deduct that “rebate” from my purchase cost, to compare that purchase with other options?
Vaughn-
I agree that the lease deal was probably bad in the long run, but attractive to the government on the same basis as the “99 dollars down, 99 dollars a month purchase” is to the majority of Americans. They don;t look at overall cost, they look at cash flow. I suspect one reason the lease deal looked good on surface. Easier to get funded.
better the devil you know than the devil you dont know —
EXACTLY!
Also, what happens if France has a diplomatic problem with our foreign policy, in the future?
I’ve lost the link, but I read today that EADS built a brand new $100 Million air-to-air fueling system, on spec, while Boeing merely proposed updating their 50-year-old technology.
It’s looking more and more as if Airbus came up with a better product and Boeing was hoping that they had the deal locked up because their’s could be the “American” tanker.
Much of the Boeing proposal included out-sourcing parts and manufacturing overseas. But, as with most military-industrial contractors, Boeing treated the project as a slam-dunk cash cow.
EADS treated the competition as, well, a competition! Y’know, capitalism! And Boeing thought they’d bought enough congressmen to get a sweetheart deal.
Frankly, I wish Boeing would have put together a better deal for taxpayers. But they got greedy and arrogant and let EADS out-bid them.
How appropriate McCain is making a victory lap to Europe. He’ll be warmly received. Might even fill up a couple bags with Euros!
If you want to see how crooked airbus is, and how unfair ‘competition’ on getting contracts, not to mention that when airbus claimed to be creating 100,000 American jobs, DOL could only verify 500!
Read patty murray’s statement on the senate floor, believe it was in 04.
The French make bribes, and then get to take a tax deduction on the amount of the bribe!
Yeah, Regular,m
but what a beautiful piece of engineering, and a sight to behold. And, though costly, it did do what it was supposed to. BUt it was a hanger queen, costing much to keep flying.
Speaking of “American Jobs”:
http://www.kansas.com/business/updates/story/337062.html
Unknown to me whether the 48,000 now estimated by Northrop uses the same definition as Boeing was using with its 44,000 estimate, or if Boeing was using the “measuring stick” Northrop used originally.
“(McCain would be happy with another 100 years of war”
That is not what he said and you know it.
This is what he said:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Looks like this is heating up to be a National issue, and will certainly be prominent in the presidential campaign.
Phantom, perhaps. I’ll continue to be dubious in my view that this will be all that important come November, especially in light of Sen. McCain not being involved in the decision made by the USAF. Yes, he was involved in the 2004 investigation, etc., but all in all, I don’t really see this as a big national campaign issue, especially in view of the Northrop announcement today, and the fact that a substantial portion of the 767 was/is outsourced. My two cents.
lj - they had a number of them still in production back in the 70s when I lived there. However, they were struggling.
I really can;t see it being a campaign issue. I just think it’s too damned bad. I do think that major Ameican defense contracts should be kept at home and award to American companies. I think that the returned taxes should also be considered. I recognize that Northrup is an American company, but that is just window dressing on an EADS airplane.
However, those who are glad that Boeing got theirs, should be quiet whenever outsourcing is discussed.
campaign issue? In what states? ESPECIALLY in what SWING states?
I think Alabama has more electoral votes than Kansas.
with the SR-71 contract (Blackbird Reconnaissance.)
That dripping piece of exotic texture bunny cost more to keep in maintained that it did to build it
Ain’t no denyin’ just how cool it was, though. Then again I joined the Jarheads just to work on Harriers.
“fish” (as you have given permission), the Harrier was of British manufacture, no?
Yep. Hawker Sidley. Actually, a plant in Wellington made quite a few parts for it. It was Plessy Aerospace at the time, and I understand Plessy is a British company. the plant has ‘changed hands’ several times since the 80s when I was sure they were making the Harrier parts, so don’t know if they still are.
Reggie,
“To be honest, Lockheed didn’t make a good impression with the SR-71 contract (Blackbird Reconnaissance.)
That dripping piece of exotic texture bunny cost more to keep in maintained that it did to build it.”
Yeah, but it did exactly what it was intended to do and did it well, was the first stealth aircraft, and still holds records for speed and altitude (and maybe more, but that’s classified). Not bad for 1965 technology!
Ben
And since when is Alabama a “swing” state?
Jed, I was thinking the old YF12 that the SR71 came from was around in ‘62. Kinda hard to remember my younger years.
This Prototype was the 1st YF-12A and performed it’s maiden flight on 7 August 1963
Ok *sigh*, take 8 stinkin’ months and call me a liar!
By the way,
We need a thread on SPITZER I think, don’t we?
(As long as we want to talk about corruption and all)
The AV-8 Harrier (Harrier II) was primarily built (at least for USAF) in St. Louis by the McDonald DOUGLAS Aircraft company. It was the who originally developed it.
The AV-8 Harrier (Harrier II) was primarily built (at least for USAF) in St. Louis by the McDonald DOUGLAS Aircraft company. It was the BRITISH who originally developed it, and originally manufactured it (I beleive)
lj, I was going from memory when I asked the question of “fish”. It seemed to me in my days in the USAF that the Harriers that were obtained by the USMC were of British origin.
Air force finally got harriers? I was on the Av8A harrier (harrier 1)
Just looked–jarheads have a better paint scheme, but i’m biased
8^b~
“As the national media awake to the Air Force tanker flap, much of the tone mirrors that of the New York Times’ editorial, which concluded: ‘For Congress to reverse the decision on “Buy America” grounds would be bad for taxpayers: requiring them to pay for aircraft that provide less value for the money. It would also be bad diplomacy and bad business. And that can’t be good for the country.’”
Damn liberal New York Times!
“Meanwhile, the contract is fast becoming a partisan issue, and part of the presidential campaign, because of GOP candidate John McCain’s role in nixing the lease deal in 2004 and setting the rules for the do-over that went Airbus’ way. ‘Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have,’ said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. ‘We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it.’”
Wait. Huh? The New York Times is agreeing with the Republicans? Say it ain’t so!
As for myself: I wish Boeing had gotten the contract, but I think the Air Force is right to go with the best offer.
And oh yes, I saw this old chestnut re-emerge somewhere up thread about McCain’s hundred year war. That’s not what he said.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
Keep in mind, I am voting Democratic this year no matter which of them wins (for all the good that will do me in Kansas). But let’s keep it real.
There was a show the last week or so on Vtol, and the Harrier aspect played a major role of the show. the had a heck of a time getting it to work, and some of the early models were even uglier than that mosquito.
Sorry, I meant USMC. My brother, jarhead that he is, would never forgive me.
Vaughn, I looked it up at wiki-
your memory is pretty good. One statement
The aircraft is known as the AV-8B Harrier II in USMC service and the Harrier GR7/GR9 in RAF service. Though it shares the designation letter number with the earlier AV-8A Harrier, the AV-8B Harrier II was extensively redesigned by McDonnell Douglas. The AV-8A was a previous-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.1A procured for the US Marine Corps. Both models are commonly referred to as the Harrier Jump-jet.
”
pretty much summed it up.
The entire purpose of the Harrier was close air support of ground troops.
It was ideal for the Marines.
One of the neatest things I saw in St Louis. A flight of about 5 Harriers came in, hovered above the runway as each one took their position in a diamond type pattern, and vtol landed simultaneously. it was pretty cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg
saw the small pic. that’s a Marine Harrier. I hate the paint job–assumed that was the air force version alluded to.
LJ, you get kinda jaded seeing them every day for 3 years. But, once as I was speeding down old logging roads I turned a corner and there was one hovering right below tree-top level. Scared the B’jeebers outta me.
Ghotiphaze-
Man, I guess so! That would be a hell of a surprise!
I have done combined arms operations with them and the Hornet while in 29 palms.
Really fun watching them drop real bombs about 1000 yards away from you.
them drop real bombs about 1000 yards away from you.
No thanks. They did that during games while I was aboard ship. Not sure of the guage of WWII era carrier hulls, but our shop was in the middle of the ship right below the catapaults, and I could still hear the ‘tinging’ of the shrapnel. Not sure how close they set off, but since it was GQ only flight crew was out.
Paul - with the black vote and Obama AL is in play. KS is not.
Ben
No, Alabama is not in play.
The “Black Vote” almost always goes Democrat.
Will the turn out be that much higher, if Obama is the nominee?
Some swing states are suffering from job losses, especially due to outsourcing. It’s bound to have some impact, even for those not directly affected. But in a sense, all taxpayers are directly affected because they are being used to make the purchases, from a country we’re involved with in the biggest WTO dispute ever. McCain will stay with his support of the deal, and I think it’ll hurt him with the industrial states. IAM has about 3/4 mil. members, some of them must be republicans.
they- should be, their tax dollars are being used…
Murtha just said the was going to kill this deal.
Murtha, from Pennsylvania. (Primary comming)
Murtha, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
http://www.murtha.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=1
Be sure to vote for McCain and “Bills Bimbo”.
They will make everything perfect for you.
Lou Dobbs, CNN just had Tiahrt on, and gave Tiahrt’s web site out.
He then linked his website with a Tiahrt link.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Here is Tiahrt’s direct link:
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/
This think is DEAD folks.
Spending Bills start in the HOUSE.
Every government contract contains language that says, to the effect, “upon appropriation of funds by Congress” —
In other words, no checks will be cut anytimes soon!
Pennsylvania? I thought this was just of concern to Washington (state), Alabama, and Kansas! Actually, I think it speaks to concerns about recession, jobs, outsourcing, and for many ruffles their patriotic featheres. Nothing ruffles like sending your tax dollars to France!
Welcome to the global economy. Where nothing matters but the bottom line.
Econ101
Posted March 10, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
Ben
No, Alabama is not in play.
The “Black Vote” almost always goes Democrat.
Will the turn out be that much higher, if Obama is the nominee?
Which is what makes AL and other southern states back in play. As you know they have been going Republican for a number of years and McCain has been counting on carrying them. And yes - Obama will increase turnout. Haven’t you been paying attention these past two months?
Ben
Of COURSE Obama will increase turnout, however, that would be HUGE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alabama
2005 (total population)White 72.14% Black 26.70% 0.98% 1.02% 0.07%
Paul - being from the Deep South I have also seen that a fairly large number of whites will vote Democratic - largely for economic reasons. I still have family down there, including Alabama. I am told by them that this year, due to the economic downturn, the South could turn purple.
Ben
Perhaps
Time will tell.
I still think that the Democrats in Congress will use this tanker issue to hurt McCain.
I think that the interests of Alabama will be ignored, by all sides outside of Alabama, as far as the tanker deal goes.
“the South could turn purple.”
Very unlikely. The Dem candidates are a black man and a woman. Then of course there is John McCain.
People down south must be thinking “Hell this just ain’ far!
Tanker Contract-Good for America.
John EADS McCain-Bad for America.
Paul - it goes beyond Alabama. Both Mississippi and my home state of Georgia stand to benefit. Also, there is a lot of deep-seated bad blood in Georgia toward Boeing going WAY back to the 60s.
Ben
Boeing tried to open a plant of sorts in Greenville Mississippi, and it failed.
Seems that the workforce required way too much remedial education.
Yes, I realize that there are some resentments towards Boeing.
Still, this is Boeing VS FRANCE, and I think Boeing comes out on top of that one.
And, to be fair to Greenville, the population there had very little experience with manufacturing or sheet metal work.
I think a pickle factory and un undewear factory are all that they had experience with, some 25 years ago when the Boeing Mississippi venture failed.
I say let’s encourage the Air Force to seek their troops in France, since that’s who they prefer to build their planes.
“I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal,” McCain said during a recent debate.
And then thanks to his Airbus lobbying campaign staff, McBush cost the American worker $35 billion in outsourced jobs!