My old profile at the Stranger says this: "Josh supports the WTO."  Yeah, yeah, I wrote that to be a little contrarian around these parts. But, in fact, I meant it.

My argument is this: Transnational corporations transcend national borders without concern or allegiance to nation states. In turn, there has to be an international regulatory body.

The argument against the WTO, it seems to me, is that it's run by corporate interests. But that strikes me like being (naively) against the EPA because the EPA (during, say, a Republican administration) caters to corporate interests. But think about it: Are you really against the EPA or do you just want to reform it?

Because, in fact, having the EPA as a regulatory body is  a solid idea.

Anyway, that's analogous to  my position on the WTO.

And here's a timely and perfect example of how the WTO is not an agent of the one-world ZOG government that's supposedly trampling local rights (as portrayed by lefty? activists), but is actually giving weight to fair play and preventing race-to-the-bottom economics.

An interim ruling in September by the WTO found that the European Union has been illegally subsidizing airplane R&D, allowing companies like Airbus to undercut competitors like Boeing.

Today, a bi-partisan group in Congress, including Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, used the ruling to fight for fair play as the DOD looks for a contractor on the new KC-767 Tankers project, estimated to be worth $35 billion.

Boeing is competing with Airbus, and if the DOD goes with the artificially cheaper Airbus bid not only will they be undercutting the U.S. government (which brought the anti-subsidy case to the WTO in 2005), but they'll be undermining U.S. jobs in a race to the bottom.

In a press statement today, Sen. Murray said:

“When I talk to aerospace workers back home in Washington state I want to be able to tell them they are competing on a level playing field. I know our workers will win a fair and transparent competition, and I urge the Department of Defense to do the right thing and consider illegal, unfair subsidies in the final tanker contract request.”

U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA, 8) added:

“With more than 22,000 Boeing workers in my district, this is a critical issue for our local economy and thousands of workers across Washington State. The Department of Defense has pledged a fair and transparent process, so it must evaluate every angle when awarding a contract for military equipment. Billions of dollars in European ... subsidies have given Airbus a grossly unfair competitive advantage in the global marketplace. The Department of Defense must consider this as they make the tanker contract decision. I believe that if given a fair shake in this process, the people of Boeing will build the Air Force’s new KC-767 Tankers.”

And Asked to quantify the Airbus subsidies, Sen. Murray's office gave us the breakdown. Sen. Murray spokeswoman Alex Glass tells us:

Since 1969, the European governments of France, Germany, Spain and the U.K. have supported Airbus’ commercial aircraft development with over $15 billion in launch aid—high risk loans at no, or low-interest, with repayment contingent on the commercial success of the aircraft. The amount of ... aid Airbus has received during the lifetime of the company—if repaid on commercial terms—is well-over $100 billion dollars. That includes over $5 billion for the A330, which Airbus is using as the platform for [the] tanker [project].