Tag Archives: Christine Gregoire

Boeing builds new 787 plant in South Carolina to escape Washington Democrats

You can’t pass regulations and taxes on corporations and then expect them to supply residents of your state with jobs. They will move to another state, and eventually, to another country.

Consider this commentary from Illiquid Assets. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Two stories jumped out at me this morning the first was Boeing backing up its warning to Washington State politicians that they needed to reform the business environment and taxation model or lose future business investment and jobs. The response from the State was a whole new plan with localized Cap and Trade via the Western Climate Initiative, no reform of labor laws that allowed a protracted Union strike that shut down Boeing just as the world was starting its slip into recession combined with and other Green initiatives sure to drive up operating and labor costs. So Boeing has decided to open the second assembly line for the 787, not in Washington State, but in South Carolina and the politicians in Olympia claim they did not see it coming. South Carolina has a lower tax rate and a “Right to Work” law that means you do not have to join a union to work at a union business.

A right-to-work law means that the corporation does not have to be shackled by the demands of corrupt leftist unions, who are largely responsible for driving the American auto industry into the ground, in my opinion.

And now, consider this statement from Republican State Rep. Dan Christiansen. (H/T Sound Politics via iPandora)

Excerpt:

It’s extremely disappointing that Boeing has chosen South Carolina over Washington, but not surprising at all. Boeing has been very critical of our state’s difficult regulatory atmosphere. At the end of the day, it has to be able to compete successfully on an international scale, especially against Airbus. Instead of providing a level playing field, Washington has consistently put up barriers that make it difficult not only for Boeing to compete, but also for other employers throughout our state.

It’s been no secret that other states have been courting Boeing for years. Boeing has tried to make it work here. However, it has gotten to a point with unemployment insurance issues, regulatory burdens, business and occupation taxes, and recently, the governor being willing to consider tax increases, that Washington is no longer a place where Boeing can be competitive.

In South Carolina, it took only days for Boeing to get the permits it needs to move forward with the second 787 plant. In Washington, it would take years. That’s one of many examples in which our state has not been helpful and has stood in the way of the ability for Boeing to successfully compete here.

When Boeing decided several years ago to move its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, many of my House Republican colleagues and I warned that unless the Legislature was willing to make reforms to improve the state’s business climate, we may see further departures. The governor and the majority party have been in denial about concerns of job providers and now our predictions are unfortunately coming true.

We must also remember this is not just about Boeing. Many other employers rely on Boeing and its workforce to support their companies. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Washington are indirectly related to Boeing and are affected. I’ve been very critical not only about how our state has treated Boeing, but all employers in Washington. Even when the Legislature made concessions to Boeing in 2003 to secure the Dreamliner in our state, I also said we should extend those tax relief benefits to all businesses. Unfortunately, very little has been done in the Legislature to make Washington attractive for business.

Today’s announcement needs to be a wake-up call to our political leaders in Washington to create a more competitive business climate before we lose more employers to other states.

(Click through to the article for another view)

Eventually, maybe the American people will realize that they can’t attack “big corporations” without facing the consequences. Until then, Democrats will keep raising taxes and adding regulations that causes business to shift jobs to low-tax states, and eventually, overseas. Outsourcing is caused by Democrats who are hostile to businesses. Unemployment is caused by Democrats who are hostile to businesses.

How public sector unions destroy economic growth

Consider this article from the Weekly Standard. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Private sector unions have a natural adversary in the owners of the companies with whom they negotiate. But public sector unions have no such natural counterweight. They are a classic case of “client politics,” where an interest group’s concentrated efforts to secure rewards impose diffused costs on the mass of unorganized taxpayers. Also unlike private sector unions, those in the public sector can achieve influence on both sides of the bargaining table by making campaign contributions and organizing get-out-the-vote drives to elect politicians who then control the negotiations over their pay, benefits, and work rules. The result is a nefarious cycle: Politicians agree to generous government worker contracts; those workers then pay higher union dues a portion of which are funneled back into those same politicians’ campaign war chests. It is a cycle that has driven California and New York to the edge of bankruptcy.

[…]Consider what happened in Washington State. After helping Democrats win full control of the legislature in 2002, the state affiliate of the Association of Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other unions persuaded lawmakers to lift the collective bargaining restrictions. Within three years the number of union members had doubled. With more state employees paying dues, the amount of union dollars flowing into the coffers of Democrats running in state elections also doubled. A prime beneficiary of such union generosity was Christine Gregoire, who became governor in 2004 after one of the closest elections in the state’s history. (AFSCME gave $250,000 to the state Democratic party to help pay for the recount that handed her the election by 129 votes). Once in office, Gregoire negotiated contracts with the unions that resulted in double-digit salary increases, some exceeding 25 percent, for thousands of state employees. In 2007, J. Vander Stoep, an adviser to Republican Dino Rossi, Gregoire’s 2004 opponent, prophetically remarked that the unions’ arrangement with the Democrats was “a perfect machine to generate millions of dollars for her reelection. . . . They are building something that conceivably can never be undone—at taxpayer expense.” In their 2008 rematch, Rossi lost again to Gregoire, this time by 194,614 votes.

This is a long article, but it’s probably the only one you’ll need to read to understand how unions completely destroy economies, as in New York and California. Print and read!

Share