Opposing the 767 tanker a bad move

I listen quietly as Sen. John McCain blasts the Washington congressional delegation for starting negotiations with Boeing for 767 tanker planes. He tells the military that they should entertain an offer from Airbus, who has yet to my knowledge built a military airplane. When that effort fails he goes to the old “it will just cost too much.”

Where was Sen. McCain when the farm subsidies bill was on its way through Congress? Where was the cry of favoritism in that battle? Where was the watchdog for the taxpayer at that time?

Let’s compare the numbers and value. The tanker program would get the Air Force 100 much needed replacements for airplanes in the fleet that spend up to 30 percent of the time grounded for maintenance. Costs will be $18 to $30 billion. Life expectancy of a 767-200T is 40 years. Benefits of the 767 over the KC-135s are larger fuel capacity, higher operating ceiling and better operating cost.

The farm program, $190 billion over 10 years, benefits only the largest farm companies. Lasting benefits are questionable. In 10 years the money is gone and the big farm companies will be right back where they started.

Granted, I am a little biased being a Boeing employee, but I question the sincerity of Sen. McCain when he says that he is protecting the taxpayer by opposing the 767 tanker. I believe before Sen. McCain goes around crying foul, he should look around at the real programs that are literally “pork barrel.”

Everett