Here's an extract from that report.
I suggest reading this carefully and hopefully without prejudice (its written by a US lobbying group that is quite active in Libertarian politics I believe)
It will point up some glaring doublestandards in terms of subsidy and so forth which the US side frequently enjoys hide or pretending isnt there, or quickly changes the subject, "pointing fingers", A Clever and quite useful method with a lot of mileage in it's use by "Airbus bashers", but it doesnt work with me and many others.
The problem in this is refuses to recognizing the fact that the US side is
just as if not -far more- guilty of subsidizing supposedly "private enterprise" efforts, to also include state subsidized, below market rate Export financing of these same products.
Once you begin to peel away the "onion" you begin to understand just how deep and quite insideous this is and one reason I totally reject the claims by some on the US side that the only "villain" in this is the European side which is in all aspects complete balderdash.
And now, extracts from the Cato Institute Report
Under the Commerce Department:
Advanced Technology Program (1995 appropriation: $431.0 million). The mission of the Advanced Technology Program is to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. companies by helping them to make better use of basic research in new technologies. ATP gives away nearly half a billion dollars a year in R&D grants to huge high-tech corporations like Caterpillar, General Electric, and Xerox. Those grants assist some of the United States' largest companies in developing and bringing to market profitable new products. General Accounting Office audits have found many ATP grantees whose overhead costs exceed actual research expenses. ATP was zeroed out by Congress last fall in the 1996 appropriations bill that funds the Commerce Department. President Clinton vetoed that bill and secured a compromise in the recently enacted FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3019) that allows ATP to survive with a 49 percent budget cut.
International Trade Administration (1995 appropriation: $266.1 million). The International Trade Administration conducts export promotion programs directed
toward specific industry sectors through its Trade Development Program. ITA's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service provides counseling to U.S. businesses on
exporting and facilitates participation of U.S. firms in trade shows. ITA also provides marketing services, develops regional and multilateral trade strategies, and investigates economically antiquated anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. All those activities are more appropriately conducted directly by the private businesses and industries they are intended to benefit.
Technology Reinvestment Project (1995 appropriation: $443.0 million). The Technology Reinvestment Project is the primary vehicle of the Defense Department's strategy to encourage the development of dual-use technologies (i.e., those with both military and civilian uses). Proponents of dual-use technology development argue that it will help to reduce procurement costs and enable the military to more rapidly integrate new technologies into defense systems. In reality, the millions of dollars of TRP research grants given to huge high-tech firms like Boeing, Hewlett Packard, and Texas Instruments end up subsidizing the development of profitable new civilian technologies that should be developed by private industry.
Independent Agencies and Other:
Export-Import Bank (1995 appropriation: $782.1 million). The Export-Import Bank uses taxpayer dollars to provide subsidized financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods. Eximbank's activities consist of making direct loans to those buyers at below-market interest rates, guaranteeing the loans of private institutions to those buyers, and providing export credit insurance to exporters and private lenders. In effect, Eximbank subsidizes the exports of some of America's largest companies, including Boeing, General Electric, and Westinghouse. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in the 60 years of its existence, Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations--most of that in the last 15 years. In addition, the new subsidy costs for Eximbank are estimated to be about $800 million a year.
In summary, the total from -just these- entries for FY 1995, US taxpayer supported programs that benefitted "private industry" total up to a whopping
$1.922 Billion (that's with a -B-)
--for one year alone, FY 1995--
Now what shall we estimate for years prior to this?
What can be explored there? I envision at least a figure -easily- from 4 to 6, to possibly as high as 10 times higher than this, especially during the Cold War years.
Say for the 747 development program during the 1960s (afterall it was part of the C-5 competition right, R&D was supported, and at least losses on it due to the Boeing product not being selected, were most probably explored and reported to the IRS in the form of a writeoff and other manuevers.)
Now, Please show me where and how the European defense contractors like DASA, BAe, Aerospatiale, etc get -that- kind of support. Here we have a very sophisticated structured government support network from the US government to supposedly "private industry" assisting it with R&D, as well as below market rate financing to sell these same US taxpayer assisted products thanks to another US taxpayer assisted instituion, the EX-IM Bank.
I invite your perusal of -these facts- and please show me dollar figures -exactly where- in the European defense industry , where and how much support they receive which in turn benefits Airbus Industrie or any of it's forebears before the Airbus Consortium was established (speaking of comparing how much stae support was there for BAe for it's Comet, Trident as well as 1-11, then I'd like to know how much in outlays were paid to Aerospatiale for the Caravelle, Vickers for it's VC-10, Rolls Royce for it's engine development, etc.)
I'd really be interested to see how much "more" those programs fared versus the Boeing, MDD, Convair, Lockheed competition.
Then we can flow chart it to today..I'd really love to see how much the Eurofighter or Tornado technology benefits the Airbus program and so forth and then claim that it exceeds the US defense contractors (G).
Otherwise, If the European defense industry was so much -bigger- in terms of dollar outlays, then literally "Pax Europa" would have been established.
Quite literally negating the need for NATO and US involvement all these years. (G) As history has shown otherwise, the US defense contractors did quite well and they reaped the benefits from their technologies into their commercial programs along with selling same products using state subsidized -below market rate- financing.
The pot calling the kettle black?
I think so.
I am very much interested in learning your sources.