I would submit that it’s not and President Obama claimed to feel the same way at his State of the Union earlier this year:

… It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what is happening.  Let me introduce you to something call the Export-Import Bank.

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) exists for the purpose of backing U.S. sold goods to foreign customers that are unwilling to take a credit risk.  Basically the agency, which was created in 1934 by those executive orders we all love so much, makes sure people in other countries buy our stuff and prevents things like “credit” from getting in the way.

One of the things that the Ex-Im currently does is provide foreign airlines loans at rates as low as 4% (vs. domestic carriers which pay market rates as high as 10.4%).  But remember, as great as these loan guarantees are, they are only available to foreign airlines, not U.S. airlines.  This is because of something called the “Home Market Rule.”

The Home Market Rule “precludes ECAs (Export Credit Agencies like Ex-Im) headquartered in one aircraft-producing nation from extending credits to airlines based in other aircraft producing nations.”  The result of observing this rule is that U.S. airlines do not have access to the below-market rate financing opportunities that their own government agency is handing out to foreign manufacturers.

So what does all this mean?  It means that whoever is selling an in demand product to overseas customers might be doing pretty well for themselves.

Of the $9.3 billion in loan guarantees Ex-Im issued in fiscal 2009, $8.4 billion subsidized Boeing sales. In Ex-Im loan guarantees, private banks or foreign governments finance the purchase (by a foreign company or government) of U.S. goods, and Ex-Im underwrites the loan, putting the U.S. taxpayer on the hook if the foreign customer defaults. This allows Boeing to offer lower prices, and it guarantees that Boeing and the lender get paid. This is called public risk for private profit.

You may recognize this format.  It’s basically the international version of Freddie/Fannie home guarantees except these houses fly.  The Examiner piece goes on to point out precisely what might go wrong:

For instance, Boeing landed a $2 billion-plus deal with the state-owned parent company of Air India. Bailed-out investment bank JP Morgan is lending Air India the cash to buy 68 Boeing jets.

That’s when the taxpayer enters the picture. Ex-Im agreed at its June 11 board meeting last year to guarantee $2 billion of the deal. So, if Air India runs out of cash in the future, Ex-Im pays JP Morgan and Boeing — with taxpayer money.

But would that ever really happen? Having the government guarantee sub-prime loans to enrich a select few American companies and sell product to customers that could not otherwise afford it has never come back to bite us, right?

Pew confirms the data a year earlier and reveals that this same level of corporate welfare was being kicked out in 2007 & 2008 as well.

The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im)—the official government agency subsidizing U.S. exports of goods and services—provided nearly two-thirds of its long-term loan guarantees over the last two years to a single corporate entity, according to analysis released today by Pew’s Subsidyscope project. In FY2007 and FY2008 combined, Ex-Im issued $15.3 billion in long-term loan guarantees. Of that total, almost $10 billion, or an average of 65 percent, went toward the purchase of commercial aircraft made by the Boeing Company, the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military aircraft combined. (emphasis mine)

With so many guarantees going to one American company, and with the other companies unable to access any of the low interest financing afforded to foreign customers, U.S. airlines have had to cut jobs in the thousands at a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in employee income.

For instance, in 2006, Delta bagan nonstop flights from New York to Mumbai.  But by 2009, the Ex-Im gave foreign competitor Air India over $3 billion in loan guarantees which in turn were used to finance 68 Boeing 777-LR aircrafts at below market prices.  The result was that “after confirming in June that it would move to its nonstop flight from Atlanta to Mumbai, India, back to New York, Delta Air Lines Inc. has now suspended the service altogether, leaving the airline with no nonstop flights between the United States and India.”

Additionally, just last month American Airlines cancelled its nonstop flights to India and announced that it will lay off 150 airport employees.

So far, Air India & Boeing seem to be doing fine.

Now comes word that the Congress is considering the reauthorization of the Ex-Im and may increase the cap on its loans and guarantees by as much as $160 billion.  Something I’m sure we all agree is more spending that we simply can’t afford to be on the hook for.

Senator Tom Coburn, in a letter written to Senators Reid and McConnell, had this to say:

We understand you are considering taking up the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2011(S. 1547) during this Senate work period. While we are aware of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank’s role in facilitating the export of U.S.-produced goods and services, Ex-Im is congressionally mandated to balance the benefits it provides to U.S. manufacturers against the harm it does other U.S. employers – a mandate the bank fails to follow.

[...]

We realize that Ex-Im’s authorization expires at the end of May and that the bank has publicly stated its concern that it will reach its authorized financing ceiling of $100 billion in the next few months. However, these impending hurdles cannot and should not prevent Congress from addressing larger, more systemic failures of the bank.

This is a complicated issue and one that I only know about because of the hard work of people like Senator Coburn.  But the fact of the matter is that the Ex-Im is defying its mandate and providing a courtesy to foreign competitors that is detrimental to American interests all to the benefit of only one American company.

We cannot continue to risk American tax dollars to finance our own competition.  The Ex-Im authorization must be reviewed and the mandates that are not being followed must be enforced.

Follow @ben_howe

His state’s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama & Romney on this issue.

In passing, I mentioned that Gingrich, who previously supported the mandate as well, has since determined that he was wrong and will take that to his debates with Obama should he win the nomination.  I based that on this exchange which took place in the South Carolina debate earlier this month:

For the video impaired, Santorum attacked Newt on his support of mandates and questioned his ability to truly stand up to Obama on this issue of healthcare reform, to which Newt responded:

“Of course you can. I’d say, you know, I was wrong and I figured it out.  You were wrong and you didn’t.”

Santorum quickly pointed out that after holding the position strongly for over 10 years, it may not fly in the debates.

When I witnessed this exchange, I decided that Newt had done an adequate enough job of acknowledging that he’d made a mistake and that overall, I was satisfied.

That was before I saw a video at Verum Serum.

NEWT GINGRICH CONFERENCE CALL ON THE WHITE HOUSE HEALTH REFORM INITIATIVE

The real foundation, the most important, uh, part of this is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectation of behavior.

Uh, we believe that there should be must-carry, that everyone should have health insurance, or if you’re absolute, uh, libertarian we would allow you to post a bond.  But we would not allow people to, uh, be free riders failing to ensure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room, uh, with no means of payment.   Uh, if you have, uh, must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering.  As we move beyond today’s press conference, this is kind of general model we’re going to be advocating…

Now as I said, I’m not surprised by the fact that he supported the mandate.  This was known before he ever announced his bid.  What I didn’t realize was that his support of it went well beyond mere theoretical and into the realm of advocacy.

This wasn’t a press conference discussing random possibilities.  This was a press conference specifically discussing the health care bill that was being debated at that moment which ultimately became the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

I can see a couple of responses from the Newt campaign.  One would be “Hey, this was May 2009.  By March 2010 when the bill passed, it was much different!”

They’d be right. It was much different by March.  It was better.  Back in May of ’09 the public option was still on the table and gov’t funded abortions were still lacking an executive order to prevent them (which of course it really doesn’t prevent but I digress).

Another would be, “Yes, he supported the mandate, but he didn’t write something incredibly similar into law like Romney did!”

Also true.  But in my mind, Gingrich may have done something equal if not worse, unless I’ve completely misunderstood what the word “advocate” means.

But enough of my theorizing, I reached out to his campaign and politely said “WHAT THE HELL???”

To their credit, they responded by pointing me in two directions.  One was to this video excerpt from Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier in which Newt & the panel were discussing one of the debate moments in November:

BRET BAIER: There was a moment in the debate where you had an exchange with Mitt Romney and you said that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was far more big government than he talks about.  Then he said ‘well we got the mandate idea from you.’ Then you said ‘well this is…you got it from Heritage and you.’  and you said ‘well yes.’  What is your stance on the mandate and … clear that up.

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, Heritage Foundation and most conservatives including me, during the period of the fight over Hillarycare, accepted the idea of a mandate.  And, gradually virtually everybody came to the conclusion that a mandate doesn’t work in part because it means more and more and more government definition of what are you mandating.  Which is exactly the point I was making the other night with Mitt.  Now, my answer to Mitt would be ‘ok, I may once have advocated, I concluded I was wrong.’  Why hasn’t he concluded he was wrong?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?

GINGRICH: Well I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something (crosstalk).  Because the… then the Congress could require you to do anything.

KRAUTHAMMER: So you’re saying that in principle it was a terrible idea.  Even if as policy it might work.

GINGRICH: Yes.

BAIER: And that’s a change for you?

GINGRICH: That is a change.  There’s no question.  That’s a change for the Heritage Foundation. A lot of us…in ’93 as opposed to Hillarycare thought that was the less destructive alternative.  The longer we dealt with it the more we concluded it was hopeless.

This laying out of the facts just doesn’t seem to jive with how things turned out.  Clearly Speaker Gingrich supported mandates well beyond the time that Hillarycare was being debated, and furthermore, it wasn’t simply a “we can’t think of anything else” if you listen to what he said in the ’09 video.  This was a well thought out and reasoned position that he said he not only believed had to happen but would be advocating for as the bill that would eventually become Obamacare was being debated.

Note also the question Krauthammer asked. “In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?” This is the question I’ve been saying will be asked in the generals and for which neither Newt nor Romney has a good answer.

Their objections about constitutionality and process leave room for the idea that in theory, they still like the whole idea and want states to do it. All of them. This is not going to be a compelling argument against Obamacare: “Vote for me! I’m the guy that wants 50 separate versions of Obamacare instead of just one!”

Yet continually, this question is glazed over quickly by supporters of Romney (and now potentially Gingrich) who wish to act as though screaming “FEDERALISM!!!” at the top of their lungs will somehow trump the fact that they don’t seem too far off from Obama in practice, rather just different in process.

The campaign also sent me this bit in Newt’s defense from Legal Insurrection who claims that the ’09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the final form of Obamacare.

The blog Verum Serum claims to have found an audio recording showing that Newt Gingrich supported Obama’s federal mandate, in a post titled Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009….

Breitbart TV picked up on that theme, asserting “this is the first example of Gingrich specifically endorsing President Barack Obama’s federally mandated version which many conservatives believe is unconstitutional and Gingrich has described as “clearly unconstitutional.”

This is wrong.  I have listened to the entire audio recording, and Newt does not endorse the Obamacare mandate, in part because the speech took place before even the earliest draft of Obamacare had been proposed.

The actual discussion in the recording is nothing new, listen for yourself, it shows Newt saying what he has said before about not allowing free riders at hospitals including either having insurance or showing that you have the ability to pay.  You can like it or not, but it’s not new or news, as Verum Serum acknowledges in its post.

The recording does not support the conclusion that Newt supported Obama’s federal mandate, which uses the police powers of the state to force people to buy insurance or face penalties.

At the time of Newt’s presentation, in May 2009, the earliest versions of Obamacare had not yet been released.  Newt specifically notes that the details of what would be proposed were unknown and (at 27:00) the process was still in the “wish list press conference stage.”

I think I covered this above.  I’ll grant you that everything was theoretical at the time and not in true bill form, but we certainly knew that the public option was on the table.  And LI may be right that the mandates were not under discussion, but isn’t that worse?

After all, in 2008, Barack Obama himself made it clear he was against mandates:

As LI noted, the ultimate form of Obamacare wasn’t under discussion in May of ’09. There were rumblings that something involving mandates might be coming, sure. Even Obama mentioned the concept as early as June 2009. But the specific mandate that Gingrich discussed was one which would allow you to choose not to participate by posting a bond or paying a fee? The only person as of May 2009 that I can find really talking about that specific type of mandate was … um… Gingrich! So I can only conclude that Obama was convinced that mandates were the right answer.  By who? I guess an advocate.  Know any Newt?  Oh that’s right.  You called yourself an advocate for the mandate, so I guess that answers that question.

Now the Romney fans are piddling all over themselves with joy to catch Gingrich supporting policies that he attacks Romney for.  They think it’s just going to be curtains for his campaign that he’s on record supporting things while simultaneously trying to destroy Romney for it.

I wish I could smack them all on the head.  What the hell do you think will happen to Romney when he tries to do the same thing?

I’ve got a request in with Newt’s campaign for a more substantial response to this issue and if I get one, I’ll update this post with it.

If we’re going to have a good candidate, these issues which could mire them in the generals, must be flushed out and must be talked about.  I’ve already publicly acknowledged that my favorite candidate among the remaining 4 is Newt Gingrich.  I’ve even gone on record as saying that if we are going to lose, I’d rather lose with Newt because at least it will be an honest campaign and Newt will go down fighting harder than anyone else on that stage.

However, if he can’t provide a better and more substantive answer as to why this wouldn’t be a problem, then we are going to have trouble with a Newt nominee.

The answer here, for Newt & Romney, is to provide true analysis of the mistake.  A real answer as to what changed and what is going to be better.  We aren’t going to win if either of these two guys gets the nomination and gives the kind of half-assed answers they’ve been giving on this question.

Cross-Posted at RedState.com

Follow @ben_howe

I’ve been in endless debates and discussions with Romney supporters and surrogates for some time now as they paint a beautiful picture of the ultimate State’s Rights battle. They claim that Romneycare vs Obamacare isn’t about socialized medicine vs the free market. They say it’s actually the core of the Federalist struggle and that Romney will channel Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and march onto the capital steps, fulfilling the dreams and desires of tea partiers nationwide by finally standing up and saying, “Enough is enough! Let the state’s make their decisions Obama! Your days of tyranny are at an end!” And they all rejoiced.

Yet, continually when Romney is approached on this subject in the debates with fellow Republicans, he seems incapable of defending any other point and seems befuddled at the idea that there might be more than one part about Obamacare that American’s had wholly objected to. For him, it’s all about the mandate.

But it’s important to keep in mind, Mitt Romney does not object to the concept of mandates. Far from it actually.

In case you haven’t already heard it a dozen times, let me try to explain the premise of Mitt Romney’s defense of the individual mandate that exists in Massachusetts.  From his perspective, it’s a simple matter of mathematics combined with certainty of human behavior.  In Massachusetts they had a serious problem, one which has presented itself in every state in the country: people without insurance were racking up enormous hospital bills and then skipping out on the debt.  This put the state in a position where healthcare costs were continually rising in order to compensate for the loss that was generated by these “free riders.”

It’s a legitimate issue which has been something that everyone has tried to figure out how to tackle for generations.  Ron Paul’s answer to the question of people who couldn’t afford insurance nor their hospital bill seemed to be something along the lines of “screw them.”  By and large, this has been considered a bad answer so conservatives have continually looked for other solutions.

Over the years, everyone from Newt Gingrich to the Heritage Foundation (and some claim that even Santorum) has at one time or another come to the conclusion that the only answer is to force everyone to pay up ahead of time.  Either by requiring them to have insurance, forcing them onto government run insurance like medicare, or having them pay some type of annual fee if they refused to do either of those two things.  Heritage & Gingrich have both changed their position on this.  Romney has not.

As recently as 2008, the mandate question was not a hot button issue.  On the campaign trail, Romney was still touting his healthcare bill as a solution that the entire nation could use to solve this ever growing problem.  Whether his view of “nationwide solution” meant state by state or federally done is still debated to this day.

Thanks to Obamacare and the backlash from conservatives, libertarians, and independents nationwide, individual mandates moved to the front of everyone’s minds.  This would of  course be a problem for a guy who wants to run for president and also “loves mandates.”  But then a beautiful thing happened: it started to be challenged in courts across the country as a 10th amendment issue.  Eureka! This isn’t about whether or not it’s good policy! It’s about the process which brought it about and the fact that it trumped the desires of the states!  At last! An intellectual justification for how Romney could enact Romneycare, call for it’s nationwide implementation, and still run on a ticket that promises to repeal legislation that does this very thing.  It’s the Federalism stupid!

But there’s a problem that all of the fanatical screaming about “electability” simply won’t or can’t address.  This path may work great to convince committed conservatives that Romney is on their side, but it will not work so well in the general elections against Barack Obama and his $1 billion reelection campaign machine.

Currently when Romneycare is assaulted (mostly by primary opponents and their surrogates on the right), conservatives that support the Governor come out in droves to explain away all of the issues in ways that they think will mostly appeal to rationality and reason.  Case in point is Ms. Ann Coulter who currently believes that a vote for anyone but Mitt is a vote for Barack Obama.

The other day, David Limbaugh tweeted a statement out of frustration with Romney supporters (he’s in the Santorum camp):

Ms. Coulter, a leader in defending Romney on national television and elsewhere, replied to this concern with what I’m assuming she thought would be a satisfactory answer:

This isn’t the only example of the committed conservative’s defense of Romneycare.  For example, Ms. Coulter also retweeted Jim Pethokoukis who had tweeted one of the points of a study recently released on the effects of Romneycare:

And she’s not alone.  Today on Fox & Friends, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the Governor as well:

She twists and turns around the issue that the Fox host’s are trying to squeeze out of her and ultimately fail to do.  The issue is: beyond the 10th amendment issue, how does Mitt Romney defend his attacks on the basis of Obamacare?  Obamacare is in philosophy, execution, and in many ways application, the same as Romneycare.

With the tweets above as the example of what substantive defenses the Romney campaign will use to battle in the generals,, Ms. Coulter gives us a preview of the rationale.  And it’s all right out of the Obama playbook and talking points.  Their plan actually seems to be to take the fight to the capital by saying:

• Public health insurance didn’t crowd out employer sponsored insurance in Massachusetts
• That any mandate, be it for public schools or for car insurance, is evidence that a mandate is perfectly acceptable even when it’s a mandate related to your right to exist.
• That costs are being contained and kept down as a result of the bill and that the uninsured are now insured and the free rides are over.
• That the mandate is only a technicality because anyone can choose not to be a part of it by simply paying a fee every year.
• That the people of Massachusetts wanted healthcare reform and that a duly elected legislature passed the bill and thus it’s perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

And this is only the low hanging fruit.  Obama could easily run ads defending the tenants of Obamacare at this point and use the likes of Ann Coulter and Pam Bondi (who is actually suing the Fed over Obamacare) to make the case for them that it’s a great bill.

I would love for Mr. Coulter or Ms. Bondi to explain exactly how it is that Mitt Romney is going to get in front of millions of Americans, the majority of which couldn’t tell you the name of the Speaker of the House, and convince them that this slick, polished banker who for many will represent the very institutions that spent the last few years bankrupting the country, is totally not a hypocrite because after all, the 10th amendment and stuff.  Yes he agrees with mandates.  Yes he agrees with more bureaucracy around healthcare.  Yes he agrees with top down government solutions.  But federalism!!!

For many Americans, they will hear Democrats for 10 months defending the basics of socialized medicine and they’ll also hear Republicans for 10 months defending the basics of socialized medicine.  We’ll finally be in unison as each side tries to convince the middle that their plan was best with the only variation being one side didn’t like the process taken under by the other.  That ultimately, socialized medicine and mandates are the only viable solution and that all sides they have a chance to vote on agree.

Whether or not the entire caricature is accurate is entirely irrelevant.  The Obama campaign can and will successfully paint him as a flip flopper who is only changing his mind on the tenants of Obamacare because his banking overlords told him to.

If he’s got some other fantastic policy positions that will make up for this wide gap in electability I’m happy to hear them.  But to borrow from Mr. Gingrich, frankly, I think he’s fundamentally the wrong candidate.

Cross-Posted at RedState.com

Follow @ben_howe

An article titled, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom.

They don’t sound too terribly off from opinions expressed on the right about the Paper of Record.  Perhaps we’ve reached a point where we can all agree that this old world rag is nothing but a liberal front and about as unbiased as Dan Rather?

Not exactly.  These folks are actually upset that the newsroom isn’t inserting their opinion enough.  And it looks like the Times is interested in hearing out their complaint.

In the article, New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, is asking readers pointedly whether or not their “hard news division” is inserting enough of their personal perspective into articles outside of the editorial section.

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

I assume “facts” is put in quotes to indicate that they are anything but “facts,” which would leave only a handful of possibilities: they are opinions, interpretations, theories, or lies.  I further assume that such “facts” are therefore the responsibility of the “fact” giver to back up and would be subject to the counter “facts” from the Paper of Record if there is a verifiable way to disprove what is being said.

Brisbane helpfully provides some examples of the “facts” in question so that we can see what this brave new world could look like if the Times writers were to become “Truth Vigilantes” as the headline calls them:

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Interestingly, this reader seems to completely miss what a “fact” is.  In this entire excerpt there is only one fact: that Clarence Thomas is expressing what he personally did or did not understand, a perspective which he alone is capable of knowing.  If there were documents that could show something to the contrary (perhaps an email with Thomas saying “Dude, I totally knew that I had to report that) then I would agree that Liptak would be completely within journalistic standards to present that information as counter evidence.

But, let’s use this new method that the Times is playing with and the leftosphere is so intent on and see how it works out.  The following will be my attempt at rewriting the article while addressing the concerns that the reader had.

From the original article:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

And now the “Truth Vigilante” version.  Changes in bold:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. What a load!11!”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible,” as I, the writer of this article do as well.
As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”  Given that this expert agrees with me, I will now accept his statement as a fact and subsequently call Clarence Thomas a liar liar pants on fire.

Brisbane plays the what if game as well with another critique:

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

This is also an interesting example.  While it perhaps would’ve been fine for a journalist to note that the word “apology” has never been uttered by President Obama in a speech about America’s position in the world (instead he just toured the world listing everything he viewed as utter American failures without ever actually saying he was sorry on our behalf), Brisbane goes on to show what the Times version of “truth vigilante” would look like. The “fact check” in this instance would’ve resulted in the writer asserting that anything hinting at an apologetic Obama, leans towards manipulation of the truth.  Brisbane asks the readers if this is what The New York Times should move to, and the left on Twitter resoundingly screamed in unison “yes!”

What the Times will do remains to be seen.  Brisbane acknowledges that being so openly interpretative would present its own problems:

Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?

Cross-Posted at Big Journalism & RedState.com

Follow @ben_howe

Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace giant which is currently under investigation for potentially making illegal payments to obtain government contracts, is essentially owned by the Brazilian government. Through their “Golden Share,” Brazil essentially has control over the company’s business operations.

According to Embraer’s website, that Golden Share provision empowers the Brazilian government with veto rights over: “Creation and/or alteration of military programs, whether or not involving the Federative Republic of Brazil;” “Development of third parties´ skills in technology for military programs;” and “Interruption of the supply of maintenance and replacement parts for military aircraft,” among other things.

But Brazil has their own explaining to do regarding their long and sordid history with the rogue country of Iran.

According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “In 1989, Brazil chose to sell Tucanos, Embraer’s relatively low cost and basic military aircraft, to Iran.” Currently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force operates around 40 Embraer T-27 Tucanos, according to the Washington Institute. In fact, the Iranians use the Tucano as their primary close air support aircraft.

In recent years, Brazil has continued its troubling friendship with Iran and ruthless leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Hudson Institute notes that, “Another area of tension between Brazil and the United States relates to Iran. In November 2009, President da Silva invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brazil. In May 2010, da Silva helped broker a deal in which Iran would ship only a portion of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing; the rest would remain in Iranian hands, where it could be further enriched for nuclear weapon production.”

After I wrote the article, most of the pushback I received was related to whether or not the Brazilian aircraft was superior and therefore deserved the contract.  This painfully misses the point which thankfully, the U.S. government is conveniently highlighting for me.

The point of my original article, which I apparently didn’t make obvious enough, was that Embraer didn’t “win” the contract.  Hawker Beechcraft was disqualified from bidding further without explanation.  The question I had and still have, is why? Thus far responses to all inquiries have been met with the transparency we’ve come to expect from this administration: complete silence, further highlighting the reason to continue asking the question.

Not surprisingly, Hawker seems to feel the same way.

Hawker Beechcraft, which has been excluded by the U.S. Air Force from competing for a contract to supply a new light attack aircraft, is fighting mad and fighting back.

The Wichita-based manufacturer of business jets and turboprops filed suit yesterday with the Court of Federal Claims following notification that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) declined to review its protest of the Air Force decision, which was made public in November.

Hawker goes on to make the case for their product which may or may not be better than the competition.  And perhaps they do have a superior product which would of course raise further questions, but, as is the case with me, some are more curious as to the bidding process that government has mysteriously employed in this situation.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance is one such group:

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance applauds and supports American aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft’s federal suit in response to the recent series of outrageous and perplexing actions of awarding the Light Air Support and Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAS/LAAR) aircraft to the Brazilian company Embraer. By doing this, the Administration will be shipping jobs overseas, and putting a critical defense project in the hands of a hostile, foreign government. This is all at the expense of American taxpayers.

In the contract bid to support the military’s LAS/LAAR aircraft program, our organization has already voiced its support for Hawker Beechcraft over Brazil’s Embraer to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in two separate letters here and here because of its ability to protect taxpayers and the country.

The abrupt disqualification of Hawker Beechcraft will lead to the awarding of the contract – and the ensuing revenue to American taxpayers – to a foreign company currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits companies from bribing foreign government officials or making other illegal payments to obtain or retain business.

The Administration’s awarding of this contract to Embraer would send billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to Brazil that would otherwise stay in the United States. Hawker Beechcraft is right to file suit with the Court of Federal Claims to help ensure this Administration keeps defense contracting and production on American soil, where they belong.

As is Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas:

(DODGE CITY, KAN.) – Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp released the following statement in support of Hawker Beechcraft after it was announced that the company had filed suit following its disqualification from competition for an Air Force Light Air Support (LAS) contract. As a result of the disqualification, the only remaining bidder is believed to be Embraer, a Brazilian company. Hawker Beechcraft had protested the disqualification by requesting a review by the Government Accountability Office, but the review was denied. Hawker Beechcraft has fulfilled similar U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force contracts for T-6A/B trainer aircraft since 1996. The contracts have been fulfilled in part at the company’s Wichita, Kansas facility.

“It is simply wrong for the Obama Administration to hire a Brazilian company to handle national security when we have a qualified and competent American company that can do the job,” Congressman Huelskamp said. “With millions of Americans out of work, it makes no sense to award the work to a foreign company. Along with my colleagues in the Kansas delegation, I will continue to attempt to right this wrong in order to preserve America’s national and economic security interests.”

According to data provided by Hawker Beechcraft, the AT-6 project supports 1,400 American jobs at 181 companies in 39 states. Additionally, the company has invested more than $100 million in order to meet the Air Force’s requirements for competition.

But as I said, it’s the government that’s really making the case that there is something to investigate here.  No answer is forthcoming when asked why they would disqualify a long time vendor of the U.S. military who happens to be an American company making a potentially superior product which would create 1,400 U.S. jobs.

I’m sure they have a great reason.

Follow @ben_howe

Cross-Posted at RedState.com

Some of you may remember that Harrington was unable to defeat Schultz in the 2010 elections, but Mrs. Harrington believes things will be different this time and answers my questions as to why and how that will be the case and what reasons might have existed in 2010 that will not exist today.

I also interviewed FreedomWorks Dean Clancy about their Tea Party Debt Commission where they are hoping to provide a grassroots answer to the “Super Committee” by having a super committee of our own.  Listen in to find out how you can get involved.

All this plus my usual awesomeness can be found at the link below.

Follow @Ben_Howe

Sit back and enjoy some awesome schooling from one of the authors of Cut, Cap & Balance.

And in case you need further evidence of how ahead of the curve RedState is, look no further than our very early front page interview with the Congressman.

Follow @Ben_Howe

Cross-Posted at Redstate.com

I also interview Dean Clancy, the Legislative Counsel for FreedomWorks, about the impending Debt Ceiling.  We discuss whether or not it matters, what we as Republicans should do, and how best to deal with the likely impasse.

I also take a few minutes to talk about the art of negotiation and compromise as well as address my new status as a Palin supporter as established through last week’s review of the film “The Undefeated.”

Renewing America – July 18, 2011

Tune into Renewing America with Ben Howe every Monday night at 9pm EST, only on FTR Radio.

Follow @Ben_Howe

At least that’s what I thought.

Admittedly, it took me some time to actually post this review of the recently released film “The Undefeated” about Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to fame. It took time because, for numerous reasons, Sarah Palin is an emotional topic for a lot of people.

She seems to be one of those national figures that you either love with adoring affection, or hate with an uncontrollable rage. Rarely have I met someone who simply doesn’t have an opinion of her. Many pretend to, but most you can see through. At least I can. I can see through it because my opinion of her was much more specific than I ever liked to admit.

Certainly I believed that the media had been incredibly unkind to her. I believed that her stepping down as Governor was more the loss of an intense battle than simply the “giving up to go get rich” that others had labeled it. But the truth, I didn’t too much care for her, in spite of my public facade of being mostly opinion free.

I didn’t think she’d really done much in Alaska, or if she had, that it was enough to act like she was the second coming of Reagan. I thought that her contributions when being interviewed were bubble-gum and lacking of any real substance. I would never finish hearing a story about her and think, “Wow, I never thought of that before.” I just didn’t see that she had that much to offer.

There was so much media coverage of Palin, and so many people that were incredibly unfair to her, that I had been desensitized. I didn’t realize it, but I had actually developed a sort of immunity to believing anything positive about Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh, a personal hero of mine, sang her praises every time her name came up. In spite of that, I still felt no reason to look further into her story.

Rush had actually gotten to the point of making it a personal game to get opinions about Palin from others because he finds the dislike remarkable. I recall that one time, he was marveling that even the conservatives that don’t want her to run for president, still talk about how great they think she is, and it seemed to confuse him. I tried to call in to tell him, “Rush, they’re saying that because they’re afraid of you! They can’t admit they don’t like Palin to you because they know you do like her and you’re the voice of the movement!”

I was absolutely right that this was the case for many people, but the only reason I knew it, was because I was one of them. Hell, if I’d actually gotten through and had the opportunity to say this to him, and he’d asked me my opinion, I’m sure I would’ve acted like she was the cat’s pajamas, just to save face.

Ultimately, I thought she was the type of political force that was going to be around, needed to be treaded on carefully, but would never have anything substantial to offer to the cause of conservatism other than rallying troops which I still believed was a valuable service.

I thought she hadn’t gotten a fair shake in the media, but I felt confident that I could see through the bias and that I understood who she was, what she had done and what my opinion would probably be about her going forward.

I was entirely incorrect.

I consider the director of “The Undefeated”, Stephen Bannon, to be a friend of mine. He’s advised me in my own fledgling productions. I’ve interviewed him a handful of times on my podcast and we always talk for over an hour effortlessly. When I heard he was making this film, I immediately wanted to interview him, but I assumed that everything I knew about Palin would simply be confirmed by watching this.

We popped the film into our DVD player, and sat back to watch. One thing I had no doubts about was that Stephen Bannon would make a visually impressive, compelling film that would stir emotion. I was pleased to see that he used his trademark method of letting the people directly tied to the events tell the story (I often find narration cumbersome) adding their own particular emotions and perspectives to the narrative. These were all things that I expected and Bannon did not disappoint.

The film moves at a breakneck pace while still laying out a level of detail that brings you so close to the events, you feel like you personally experienced them.

Even had the substance not convinced me that I had Mrs. Palin pegged wrong, the film itself would most certainly have scored high for me as my all important test was passed: Did I look at my watch? No I did not.

In short, the execution of this film is excellent.

But what had me and my wife blown away by the time it was over, was the avalanche of information and perspectives that had been hidden from us over the years. As I would like for you to listen to my interview with Steve, I will not get into the substance of what caused the change. I want you to hear it for yourself.

I pride myself on my ability to know when something is baloney, almost instinctively. On Sarah Palin, I was so incredibly hoodwinked that the one word that my wife and I agreed described how we felt after watching it, was shame. Yes of course invigoration, satisfaction and all the other things you experience when watching a good film, but about how we had handled our vetting of Mrs. Palin, shame was the word that best described it.

Shame for not bothering to look up her record. Shame for not reading her story. Shame for turning the channel when she came on the tv. Shame for not listening to people that we had a great deal of respect for like Andrew Breitbart, Tammy Bruce, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.

I urge you to see this film when it hits theaters tomorrow. And I urge you to put aside your preconceptions about who this woman is. You don’t have to think she should be the next president to believe that the way she has been presented, even by conservatives, has been completely wrong.

Please listen to my interview with Mr. Bannon and see the film.

July 11, 2011 – Interview With Stephen Bannon