President Obama says he wants to “win the future,” but his labor policies are losing new jobs.
Last week, the Obama administration filed a lawsuit to prevent a company, Boeing, from creating new jobs in one state rather than another. This is another outrageous overreach by the federal government. Not only do we now have a law forcing people to buy a good or service (i.e. health care), the federal government is now dictating where companies can and can’t do business!
The Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board filed the lawsuit because Boeing plans to build a new airplane production plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina. The New York Times called the suit “the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relationship Board under President Obama.”
Politics aside, the economics of the NRLB’s suit could not be worse. Boeing is hiring nearly 1,000 new employees in its new South Carolina plant and has invested $2 billion in the project. Instead of prioritizing jobs and growing the American economy for all hard-working Americans, the Obama administration is now dictating where companies are allowed to create new jobs.
Understand that I have no grudge against private-sector unions. To the contrary, I grew up in a union family in South St. Paul, once the home of the nation’s largest meatpacking plants. I myself was a union member at a grocery store to help pay for school, and I appreciated the job. Unions historically have played an important role in ensuring safety and fairness in American industry. But today, Big Labor has joined arms with Big Government to actually stop job creation.
Private businesses should be allowed build new branches or plants anywhere in America — in fact, we should be encouraging it!
Sadly, President Obama is doing the opposite.
He is giving Big Labor veto power over where American companies can and cannot build their production facilities, and South Carolina doesn’t make the cut for an investment that would provide new jobs and American products to be shipped around the world.
America deserves a president who will support innovation and investment leading to new jobs and economic opportunities everywhere. But today, we have a president beholden to Big Labor, threatening American jobs, and undermining economic growth.
— Tim Pawlenty is a former governor of Minnesota.
Sorry Governor. You don't grow jobs by pandering to people who produce a fuel that:
- drives up the price of food,
- sucks up federal subsidy money, and thereby
- contributes to the national debt, and
- causes vehicles and tools with gasoline engines to burn out quicker.
Buh-bye.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe last comment about pandering to people who produce fuel just shows the ignorance of people who would let political "sides" dictate how and where jobs are created. The last time I looked, no political party was providing jobs or benefits for the millions of out of work people all across the nation. No political party was paying the lost wages, mortgages, health insurance premiums or credit card debt of the people who haven't been able to find work. Instead of worrying about pandering to Big Oil, let's help the companies and individuals who are looking to create jobs and put people back to work so they can stand on their own two feet and not have to accept the handout that Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are so quick to offer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that the government is taking to much of an interest in what business is doing. Where are they when the companys move there businesses out of the United States? These companys who move outside are looking for cheaper labor and costs. Can't blame them when our government is such a dictatorship. I say none of there business! They won't be happy until they regulate everything and every step you make. And, how long will it take for Americans to finally get fed up with all the buracracy? I love this country and hate what is being done to it. God bless America
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn looking at Mr. Pawlenty's post, I see the same "We're from the Federal Government and we're here to help" attitude (with the accompanying confidence in Federal expertise and centralization) of which he seems to accuse President Obama (and to be fair, the language he uses is used by most national politicians of both parties):
"Instead of prioritizing jobs and growing the American economy for all hard-working Americans...."
"[W]e should be encouraging [private businesses [to] build new branches or plants anywhere in America]."
"America deserves a president who will support innovation and investment leading to new jobs and economic opportunities everywhere."
It all sounds perfectly wonderful. But that's the point: when a President argues for federal action, he always sets forth reasons and goals that sound wonderful.
And while I'm aware I'm sorta picking on Mr. Pawlenty here, I'd suggest that there is an underlying attitude on display that evinces a confidence in Federal Wonderfulness and Wisdom of which I'm not convinced.
What gives Mr. Pawlenty the confidence that the Federal Government either can, knows how to or knows how much to "prioritize jobs", "grow the American economy",
"encourage private businesses to build new branches or plants anywhere in America" or "support innovation and investment?"
Each of these activities requires a Federal Government with a lot of power, money and expertise. Mr. Pawlenty, in many ways, has views opposite those of President Obama, but when you talk about the Government as doing all these things - rather than simply staying out of the way of Americans employing their talents, time, labor and money as they see fit (which may or may not result in jobs or economic growth) - you're still imagining a busy, busy, big Federal Government using its power and money to make sure we're doing things with our talent, time, money and labor that the Federal Government deems to be Virtuous and Useful.
It's probably the reason that Government doesn't really get "smaller" under "conservative" or Republican governance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse