Obama, Boeing, and Electoral Votes

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Obama is thrilled that Boeing has struck a deal with NASA, which will create about 550 jobs in the State of Florida. I am not going to argue. New jobs are a good thing, even in this case where the jobs are being reconstituted after the space shuttle program shut down.

Recently, Obama was angry that Boeing expanded into South Carolina. The National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing over it. The expansion into South Carolina will likely create 12,000 jobs.

Both Florida and South Carolina are right-to-work states, which protects workers from being union by force, and protects the company from union strikes.

So why would Obama be thrilled over 550 jobs in Florida, yet angry over 12,000 jobs in South Carolina?

Remember, as I wrote a moment ago, the National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing for building in South Carolina, saying it is taking jobs from one place and putting them in another as "retaliation" against unions in Washington state for previous strikes.

However, how could it be retaliation? The law says that a company can't retaliate against a union, but Boeing did nothing of the sort. The company has not only not laid off a single worker in Washington State, it has added around 3,000 new ones in that state. In fact, seven out of every 10 Dreamliners will be assembled in Puget Sound.

So why is the union, and the democrats, so angry with Boeing's expansion into South Carolina, while being perfectly happy with the deal in Florida?

Before the expansion into South Carolina, Boeing asked the union for a moratorium on strikes. The request was because Boeing needed to get the Dreamliner airplane into the hands of impatient customers as quickly as possible, and the last thing they needed was a strike. The union said it would agree only if Boeing promised never to manufacture anywhere but Puget Sound. Boeing refused. How dare the union try to dictate to them where they do business. Any company would refuse such a ridiculous demand. Especially when you consider that by South Carolina being a right-to-work state, it poses as an alternative facility should Boeing’s union work force shut down production of the Dreamliner in Washington with a strike.

Hence, the reason for the union's demand. Having a plant in a right-to-work state takes away their power. A strike would have no effectiveness.

One reason Obama supports Florida, and not South Carolina, in the sense of Boeing's choices for facilities, is because the Florida deal, because of NASA's involvement, receives federal funding. Therefore, Obama can say (in his little mind) that he created those jobs. President Obama not only had nothing to do with the South Carolina job creation, but he actually opposed it. Those are jobs created without his help, and without the federal government. Boeing will no doubt benefit from some government contracts with the production of the 787 Dreamliners at the Charleston facility, but it is purely a commercial venture and not a federal program. Capitalism at its finest.

Of course, there is another reason Obama likes the Florida deal more, as well. Yeah, sure, it’s not due to free market activity which always puts a smile on a liberal democrat's face. I get that. But also, one must also consider that Florida has more electoral votes than South Carolina.

Obama picks the winners and losers, who he will support, and who he won't, based solely on what benefits him politically the most.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Praises New Boeing Jobs in Florida - Fox News

How Democrats Hurt Jobs - New York Times