The political fallout from Boeing's bombshell
Gov. Gregoire just finished an artful press conference, disclaiming any responsibility for Boeing's decision to build a second 787 production line in North Charleston, S.C., noting again that Boeing had told her there was nothing the state could do about the decision. The governor then tried to shift the public's attention to working together to keep future 737s and tanker projects in the state. No recriminations, please.
That probably won't wash. Why should the governor follow Boeing's script, rather than use her strong union connections to push the aerospace workers to be more conciliatory? And if Gregoire was doing so as part of a deal with Boeing — cooperate on our 787 exit, where labor will be the fall guy, and we'll work with you on keeping the 737 — might that not prove a wee bit naive?
But Gregoire isn't running in this election. (I suspect she now knows she won't be running in 2012 either.) So how about the Seattle mayor's race and the King County executive race? Susan Hutchison was one of the first to try to exploit the issue, holding a press conference in front of KeyArena to stress how the local all-Democrats political order has lost the Sonics and now has also destroyed "the future of Aerospace in our state." She then took off the gloves, blaming unions and the broader Democratic regime in the state for the loss of Boeing:
Our current crop of politicians have destroyed the Washington State business climate. They bend to the will of special interests that discourage businesses both large and small and push jobs out of our communities. They have failed to respond to growing job losses by fixing the tax and regulatory climate and fixing our failed transportation grid. They have encouraged the outrageous overreaching of unions and have left us with a business climate that no longer allows businesses to survive or thrive.
King County is the economic engine of this region and the engine has broken down.
The organizations responsible for pushing the aerospace industry and the thousands of jobs dependent upon it out of our State are the very same bankrolling Dow Constantine’s campaign.
Saying that Dow Constantine "lost Boeing" may be quite a reach, and Constantine quickly retorted that he is "the only candidate supported by both the business community and workers," and so therefore "in the best position to create common ground and set the foundation for job growth and future prosperity." He then shifted focus to the new economy (clean energy, biotech, software), making him seem more forward-looking. But Hutchison is probably smart, if a little desperate, in tapping economic uncertainties and calling for a return to business-driven agendas and roll-backs of union perks. (Smart, that is, if running anywhere than King County. Indeed, the Hutchison broadside sounds to me more like the first salvo of a statewide race.)
The more likely impact of the Boeing decision for local politics will be on the Seattle mayor's race. Mike McGinn's Sierra Club agenda is not going to seem like just the right medicine for an ailing local economy, suddenly desperate to hold onto jobs. Likewise, Joe Mallahan's big-business experience (as a T-Mobile executive) ought to be more of a political advantage, along with his "get-real" stance on issues such as the Viaduct. To be sure, a lot of voters have already mailed in their ballots. But those still sitting on fences are likely to turn into sober pragmatists in these post-Boeing days.








Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 5:17 p.m. inappropriate
What bombshell? It has been obvious to everyone for months that Boeing was going to build a second assembly plant in Charleston, SC. The so-called competition was simply to see how much they could get out of South Carolina.
The Governor knew this months ago. Boeing didn't even attempt to hold the state hostage for more concessions, tax breaks, etc. I think they know the well is almost run dry in Washington. South Carolina was ripe for the picking.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 5:37 p.m. inappropriate
Geez. There are more construction jobs possible with the 4-lane cut-n-cover than the Deep-bore. The 4-lane cut-n-cover also costs less, handles traffic better to produce a less traffic-choked Alaskan Way Promenade and a saner Mercer. Wow! What the hell? What the frickin hell! Morons. You guys smoke too much pot.
Boeing is leaving because the airline industry is facing complete collapse. Petroleum-based jet fuel is a finite resource with no alternative replacement. Boeing wants to relocate downsized facilities where they won't have to face employees who blame them for job losses. Screw Boeing. Invest in photovoltiac solar panel production for rooftop installation, rather than vast solar arrays and long-distance transmission line systems far from urban/suburban area. Screw Boeing. Convert their moat-surrounded headquarters in Tukwila for some other purpose.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 5:41 p.m. inappropriate
On the specific issue of Boeing, there probably wasn't much the governor could do, and nothing the leaders of Seattle or King County could do. But it does call people's attention to the larger issue of whether Washington can retain a strong economy. I voted Joe Mallahan for mayor, together with Jessie Israel, Robert Rosencrantz, and Sally Bagshaw for city council. A big part of the reason for that is that these candidates, in contrast to their opponents, understand and respond to the needs of business without being entirely beholden. I fear that Seattleites have become too accustomed to economic prosperity and take it for granted.
As for Susan Hutchison, I like her and think that she could be a good leader in Washington some day, but I am concerned about her lack of experience and seeming lack of knowledge about issues in King County. I also hold Dow Constantine in high regard, and I happily voted for him. But I think that Hutchison's path to success probably lies in a center-right perspective that focuses on economic competitiveness, and it would help her if Boeing continues to slip away under Democratic leadership.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 8:10 a.m. inappropriate
Unfortunately for Christine (and the rest of our states D-prefaced minions), a large portion of this belongs at her door. She has ceded State governance to environmental extremists and “sovereign” nations that are hostile to businesses (other than theirs!). Boeing is captive to a poster-child of environmental activism/process on the Duwamish River. A group of “stakeholders” (do they have “stakeholders” in South Carolina?) wants cleanup of that INDUSTRIAL waterway to be something more than Clean Water Act standards. No, those aren’t good enough for us in the Evergreen State! No, we want Boeing to be on the hook to restore the INDUSTRIAL Duwamish river to the point that it provides subsistence fisheries to two indian tribes (whatever “subsistence” fishery means… like a lot of indian claims they are not quantified). I hope when our “environmentalist” neighbors run all business out of state, their allies the tribes, will gladly share some of their fish for us to eat. I’m sure they will – at least – take care of Christine. Just as she has taken care of them.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 11:36 a.m. inappropriate
Yes Washington probably could “compete” with South Carolina if we eliminated our environmental protections, reduced our wage expectations and sacrificed our public institutions in favor of regressive tax policies. I however still cling to naïve notion that my grandchildren will be able to swim in unpolluted water, breathe clean air, eat native salmon and attend high quality educational institutions. Is this a dream which is unattainable in absolute terms? Certainly, but that should not stop us from engaging in a collective pursuit for a better future.
Boeing has made what is in all likelihood an irreversible decision. Joining second world states in their race for the bottom in order to preserve our remaining manufacturing jobs might prove to be a pointless endeavor, an endeavor that could only serve to ensure that the maximum amount of sacrifice is spread among the greatest number of people, while concentrating the benefits in the hands of a few. Competition on the basis of “lowest cost” can only result in a continued backslide for states in a country which assures unfettered interstate commerce without also requiring that some level of parity be maintained between states. Where does it all end?
Our success now depends on our ability to prepare for a post manufacturing future, failure to do so, or any delay in our preparations will guarantee future calamity. We should at once begin to plot a course for our future which only contains Boeing in a limited capacity. Had Detroit begun planning 30 years ago for the decline of an industry which had already abandoned the city, they might find themselves in a very different place today. Conversely, New York’s diversified economic base has rendered almost insignificant the departure of the garment industry for Bangladesh and other “less regulated” and “low cost” markets.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 7:03 p.m. inappropriate
Boeing did not just decide to move to Charleston, they just executed an existing strategy and pinned the blame on unions after throwing negotiations. Boeing managers and employees have been moving to S. Carolina for months. The state should consider promises of future behavior to be deception and proceed as though Boeing will eventually leave entirely. These are very smart people, and their only interest is to make money.
Posted Fri, Oct 30, 2:25 a.m. inappropriate
Amazing how fast folks were to blame the union and the Gov...
Anyone been paying attention the last couple decades as to where Boeing has been spending money in local campaigns?
As one of a handful of states left that does NOT have an income tax, our budget is overly dependent on other artful forms of taxes. Our school funding was based on timber sales... a great idea in 1920... not so hot today. We have added lotto and auto tabs, priced up booze and smokes... all dancing around the fact that we rank 35 in taxation, but have to base it on more regressive, per person consumptive taxes than progressive ones...
Pro or con, in harder times, spending goes down and so does revenue. So does funding for education and infrastructure... Along comes so called relief like Tim Eyman, and funding gets crippled even more.
The point? We are among the lowest paying for teachers in higher ed. Our transportation and utility infrastructure is a mess. And in a downturn we have less for any of the important things that make for an educated workforce, and transportation that allows the movement of goods and services, and employees who can get to work on time.
Look at all the money Boeing has spent over the years to support passage of school and education levies, of pro highway levies. Look at how Boeing has fought every one of Tim's Eyman's "Easy-Pickens" populist self inflicting tax "givebacks". Boeing has had to add its name to many to insure what should be basic services...
Yes, $14 per hour trumps $28 per hour. Yes, the union and wall street driven management were intransigent... But our inability to provide a STABLE tax base also plays a role. South Carolina made it easier when schools, funded well, were able to offer voc tech programs to prepare future employees. S.C. has spent years to coordinate transportation infrastructure improvements for road, rail and port. Systems work, and infrastructure is up to date and functional.
The things a state CAN do with a stable tax revenue.
There is not much we can do that would lower the cost of living here vs. there. But we could do far better in the long run with a tax base that does not move from red to black to red in regular cycles.
Like us, South Carolina has sales tax and property tax, and other consumer driven taxes... BUT South Carolina ALSO has an Income tax.