Why no mention of all the tax breaks?

Regarding the Thursday editorial, “Now turn the focus to Boeing’s future, here”:

The problem, as we see it, is your unfailing boosterism (not sure if that is a real word, but you get my drift) of business in general and Boeing in particular. Understandable as well. After all, who else is going to look out for your bottom line?

We could perhaps regard your editorials as more informative, which is purportedly your mission in life, if when editorializing you would be more objective, or tell the whole story. That’s what your readers expect. You don’t mention the millions, soon to be billions, of tax dollars the company does not have to pay. You must of overlooked the fact that somebody has to make up the shortfall in tax revenue. We all know who that somebody is. You seem to place blame on the unions involved for the work stoppages as the sole source of production delays.

In your own newspaper, I believe, I have read stories about the inability of some suppliers (to whom Boeing has outsourced the job) to supply quality parts, in a consistently timely manner, to facilitate the delivery of product to customers on time. Boeing jobs are going the way of most manufacturing jobs — to cheaper labor land. No amount of further bleeding taxpayers for subsidies will change that. It simply costs more to live here and therefore wages are necessarily higher.

I am not a union member, never have been, and I see plenty of fault in the union stance on benefits. I am, however, a faithful Herald reader, for over 25 years. Your delivery people are the best. I would request, that if you wish to inform us, you would let us in on the whole story. So we don’t have to read it somewhere else.

Don Curtis

Clinton