Obama Gives 1,000 Jobs the Silent Treatment

Democrats Admit they “Own the Economy,” But Won’t Own Up to Their Job-Destroying Policies

• Pressed yesterday about his views on his National Labor Relations Board’s lawsuit against Boeing, President Obama attempted to dodge the issue by stating that NLRB is “an independent agency.” Never mind that he appointed three of the four members on its current board.
• Obama may feel the need to cozy up to Big Labor—and what better way to do that than to give tacit approval to a Big Labor-backed lawsuit that threatens 1,000 jobs in a right-to-work state.
• Obama has a history of pursuing job-destroying policies while seeking distance from that agenda in public statements. Democrats agree they “own the economy,” but when will they own up to their job-destroying policies?

BACKGROUND:

Pressed yesterday about the National Labor Relations Board’s actions to destroy jobs in South Carolina, President Obama “dodged” the issue, claiming that “it’s an independent agency” despite the fact that he has appointed three out of its four current members:

“OBAMA DODGES ON NLRB’S BOEING SUIT,” CLAIMS “IT’S AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY”: “During his press conference, President Obama just dodged a question about whether the suit filed by the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing was contributing to a bad regulatory environment that was hurting businesses.

“Asked about it today, he declared ‘It’s an independent agency’ and said he didn’t want to comment because it would ultimately be decided by a judge. Yes, this is the same Obama who scolded the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech.” (Phillip Klein, “Obama Dodges Question on NLRB’s Boeing Suit,” The Washington Examiner, 6/29/2011)

MAJORITY OF NLRB MEMBERS ARE OBAMA APPOINTEES. (“The Board,” National Labor Relations Board, Accessed 6/29/2011)

Obama’s attempt to distance himself from the damage being done by his own appointees can’t hide what appears to be a pure political calculation. With re-election on his mind, Obama may feel the need to cozy up to Big Labor—and what better way to do that than to give tacit approval to a Big Labor-backed lawsuit that threatens 1,000 jobs in a right-to-work state. The administration is effectively seeking to shut down a rare economic bright spot in an economy suffering under the siege of the Democrats’ anti-growth policies:

NLRB IS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN A $750 MILLION PLANT IN SC THAT JUST HIRED 1,000 NEW WORKERS: “The agency wants a judge to order Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington, even though the company has already built a new $750 million South Carolina plant and hired 1,000 new workers there.” (Susan Hananel, “Boeing-NLRB Labor Dispute Turns Into Headache for Obama,” Associated Press, 6/29/2011)

BUT NLRB’S GENERAL COUNSEL ADMITS HE CAN PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE THAT BOEING BROKE RULES: “Testifying in a field hearing held by the House Oversight Committee in South Carolina, National Labor Relations’ Board acting general counsel Lafe Solomon couldn’t provide evidence that Boeing opening a non-union facility in the state cost union jobs or was retaliatory, even though that’s central to the lawsuit he filed against the company.” (Phillip Klein, “NLRB General Counsel Can’t Provide Evidence That Boeing Action Cost Union Jobs,” The Washington Examiner, 6/17/2011)

AND NLRB IS ALSO TRYING TO RAM THROUGH “SWEEPING CHANGES” TO UNION RULES THAT “COULDN’T EVEN SURVIVE A DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED CONGRESS”: “The NLRB just proposed the most sweeping changes to union organizing elections in more than 60 years. NLRB board members, most of them appointed by President Barack Obama, want to speed organizing votes, limit legal challenges and give labor organizers easier access to worker information such as street and email addresses. …

“But allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to push through rules that couldn’t survive even a Democratic-controlled Congress is a snub to the voting publicwho elected their leaders to make just these kinds of big decisions in Washington.” (Editorial, “Don’t Let NLRB Usurp Congress,” Wisconsin State-Journal, 6/29/2011)

Sadly, Obama has a history of pursuing extreme, job-destroying policies while seeking distance from that agenda in public statements. Outrageous though Obama’s handling of the NLRB has been, he is managing the regulatory onslaught of other government agencies much the same way: feigning concern about regulations in general, while allowing bureaucrats a long leash to create regulations that put America’s economy at risk. Democrats may admit they “own the economy,” but will they also admit that their policies are destroying jobs?:

DNC CHAIR DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ CLAIMS DEMOCRATS “OWN THE ECONOMY”: “We own the economy.” (Molly Ball, “Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ‘We Own the Economy’,” Politico, 6/15/2011)

OBAMA PURSUES “REVIEW” OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: “President Barack Obama plans a government-wide review of federal regulations, aiming to eliminate rules that stymie economic growth.” (Elizabeth Williamson, “Obama Launches Rule Review, Pledging to Spur Jobs and Growth,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/18/2011)

WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING THE EPA TO RAM THROUGH “THE MOST COSTLY, BURDENSOME, AND EXPANSIVE SET OF JOB-KILLING REGULATIONS EVER CRAFTED”: “As the U.S. economy struggles to get back on track, now is not the time to allow EPA to impose what could prove to the be the most costly, burdensome, and expansive set of job-killing regulations ever crafted. …. The American Council for Capital Formation has estimated that EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014. EPA’s own records indicate that permitting provisions alone will cost applicants $125,000 and 866 hours of burden per facility.” (R. Bruce Josten, Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/9/2011)

“ROUGHLY 20 NEW RULES FROM EPA ALONE IN LAST TWO YEARS”: “The plan put forth by EPA is a good example. There have been roughly twenty regulations proposed or finalized over the past two years at EPA that the Chamber has weighed in on in one way or another, ranging from greenhouse gases to boiler emissions standards to numeric nutrient criteria. The costs to industry in these twenty rulemakings are steep, and in virtually each case EPA has not adequately performed statutorily-required analyses of job impacts, economic impacts, small business impacts, and other burdens. Yet EPA’s plan identifies only two of the twenty – the lead paint rule and vehicle greenhouse gas regulations – and in both cases still fails to address the fundamental complaints made by industry.” (Bill Kovacs, “One Small Step …”, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 5/26/2011)