(Washington D.C.) – Today, the Co-Chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Representative Jeb Hensarling and Senator Patty Murray, released the following statement.

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.

“Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee’s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy.

“We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task.

“We would also like to thank our committee staff, in particular Staff Director Mark Prater and Deputy Staff Director Sarah Kuehl, as well as each committee member’s staff for the tremendous work they contributed to this effort. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Douglas Elmendorf and Mr. Thomas Barthold and their teams at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, for the technical support they provided to the committee and its members.”

Sure, this kind of fund raising goes on all the time, though not all get a personal phone call from the DSCC Chair herself. Would it be unfair to speculate that were a little cash to flow the right, or perhaps that’s the Left’s way, Democrat’s might call off the dogs? It is curious, to say the least. Finally, I wonder how the unions will react knowing that powerful Democrats are also currying favor with the Koch brothers, while they remain dissatisfied with some Democrat policy moves?

For many months now, your colleagues in the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee leadership have engaged in a series of disparagements and ad hominem attacks about us, apparently as part of a concerted political and fundraising strategy. Just recently, Senator Reid wrote in a DSCC fundraising letter that Republicans are trying to “force through their extreme agenda faster than you can say ‘Koch Brothers.’”

So you can imagine my chagrin when I got a letter from you on June 17 asking us to make five-figure contributions to the DSCC.

You followed that up with a voicemail* indicating that, if we contributed heavily enough, we would garner an invitation to join you and other Democratic leaders at a retreat in Kiawah Island this September.

Their latest pitch is that the highpoint of the GOP advance was the Scott Brown election and that, from here on, things will “improve slightly” for the Democrats.

Once again, Carville and Greenberg are totally misreading the public mood. Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called “moderate” Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rise.

Were Obama’s ambitions to slacken, perhaps a cooling-off might eventuate. But soon the socialist financial takeover bill will come on the agenda, followed by amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap-and-trade and card-check unionization. Each bill will trigger its own mobilization of public opposition and add to the swelling coalition of opposition to Obama and his radical agenda.

And, all the while, the deficit will increase, interest rates will rise and unemployment will remain high.

Meanwhile, the political process will generate more and more strong Republican challengers. We have yet to see if former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin or Dino Rossi of Washington state will emerge to challenge Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Better House candidates will decide to capitalize on the momentum and will jump into the race and Republican donors will come out of hiding, their efforts catalyzed by the growing optimism about GOP chances.

Presaging the looming Republican sweep is the shift in the party ratings on various issues. Rasmussen has the Republicans ahead by 49-37 on the economy and 53-37 on healthcare. His likely-voter poll shows GOP leads on every major issue area: national security (49-37), Iraq (47-39), education (43-30), immigration (47-34), Social Security (48-36) and taxes (52-34).

When Republicans are winning issues like education, healthcare and Social Security — normally solidly Democratic issues — a sweep of unimaginable proportions is in the offing.

Will the rise in economic growth and job creation — if they continue — offset the Republican gains? Not very likely. Remember Bill Clinton’s 1994 experience. Even though the recession had officially ended in the quarter before he took office and he proudly pointed to the 5 million new jobs that had been created during the first two years of his presidency, Clinton got no bounce from the jobs issue or the economy. Even in the election of 1996, the economy was only marginally a source of strength for the Democratic president. It wasn’t until impeachment that the job growth that had been ongoing since he took office began to work heavily in his favor with the public. The hangover from a recession, and certainly from one as violent as this, lasts a long time. A very long time.

And all this assumes that things will, indeed, improve. Worries about inflation loom large and concerns that higher taxes and interest rates will trigger a new downturn also abound. As long as the deficit is as high as it is, there is no solid foundation for a sustained period of economic growth.

Finally, Obama is now responsible for healthcare in America. When premiums rise, it will be his fault. When coverage is denied, it will be on his watch.

When Medicare cuts kick in, it will be Obama who gets the blame.

Carville’s last book touted “40 more years of Democrats.” Now he dreams of a loss of “only” 25 seats in the House and “six or seven” senators. But these are pipe dreams. Republicans will gain more than 50 House seats and at least 10 in the Senate, enough to take control in both chambers. That’s reality.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

Union leaders and politicians like Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., expressed shock, dismay and outrage at the company’s decision.

Either they are feigning surprise, or they’ve been comatose for the last decade. Your guess is as good as mine.

For years, politicians and labor leaders in Washington have ignored Boeing’s pleas to stay competitive. In 2002, Boeing CEO Alan Mulally told the State House Labor Committee that “the state of Washington is not competitive. . . . meaning it costs us more to operate [here].” He specifically pointed to Washington’s costly workers’ compensation system, which requires employers to purchase insurance coverage from the state or be on the hook to cover all claims costs themselves, rather than allowing them to choose from among competing private providers. As a result, Washington collects some of the highest premiums from employers and injured worker rates are well above the national average.

Boeing’s decision to place its second 787 line in South Carolina is too complicated, however, to be blamed on any single factor. In 2002, Mulally told lawmakers that Washington would have to become more competitive in taxes, unemployment insurance (UI) and regulations, among other factors, in order to keep the state attractive for Boeing.

Unfortunately, rather than engaging in an honest discussion about reform in these areas, legislators decided on a $3.2 billion “incentive package” that included some UI  and workers’ comp. reforms. Just a few years later, however, the legislature rescinded many of those changes. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation fought a lengthy battle to get the details of the state’s contract with Boeing. Once we finally got them (the unredacted portions), we discovered that Boeing could walk away from the deal at any point without penalties, whereas Washington was on the hook for pricey commitments until Boeing decided to cease building 787s.

This is one of many examples illustrating why one-on-one handouts between governments and businesses are bad for taxpayers, and in the long run, bad for the businesses themselves. Once the luster of the handout runs out, the business will scramble for another, and another, and so on. Better to build a strong business climate across-the-board, which is good for large and small companies alike.

Washington’s competitiveness, from a labor standpoint, is dismal. Other states should take note. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning workers do not have to be members of a union as a condition of employment. Workers at the South Carolina plant where Boeing plans to locate its second 787 line recently voted to remove the union from the plant—an unlikely feat in Washington given our current labor laws and the history of organized labor in this state.

It would be difficult to overstate labor’s role in Boeing’s decision to forego expansion in Washington. In September 2008, we wrote that Boeing machinists would likely get much more than they had bargained for when they went on strike. “Given the machinists’ apparent disregard for economic realities and their totally unsustainable demands on their employer, Boeing would be wise to take its business elsewhere.” And so it is.

The 2008 strike was Boeing’s fourth in just two decades, and, at 57 days, the longest since the 69-day strike in 1995, which “poisoned morale for years.” According to the AP, the 2008 strike cost Boeing $100 million a day in deferred revenue and postponement of the 787. That kind of loss won’t be recouped for years.

Boeing’s final offer to the machinists prior to last year’s strike included a 14 percent monthly pension increase, a 2008 lump-sum bonus worth about $3,900 on average, a generous new incentive-pay plan and other perks. All told, Boeing estimated the package was worth an additional $34,000 in extra compensation to the machinists over three years.  

But it wasn’t enough.

When Boeing made the final decision to expand in South Carolina, the company was sending a loud signal to politicians and labor leaders in Washington that the company had had enough. Boeing’s vice president of human resources and one of the lead negotiators in the talks with the machinists told the Seattle Times that the company was “unwilling to indulge the kind of last-minute brinkmanship that has been typical in all recent contract negotiations with the [machinists].”

Unions and politicians alike would do well to remember that capital is mobile. Companies have a bottom line and they must respect it. Businesses will go where they must to operate more efficiently and increase their profit margins.

Politicians should take note. In the end, Boeing had the last laugh.