The home team, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is asking California lawmakers to approve $420 million in corporate tax breaks over 15 years that would apply exclusively to “a major first-tier subcontractor awarded a subcontract to manufacture property for ultimate use in or as a component of a new advanced strategic aircraft for the United States Air Force.” A vote in Legislature could come today.

If that language sounds vague yet oddly specific, it’s because Assembly Bill 2389 was drafted at the behest of Gov. Jerry Brown to help Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s joint effort to win a contract to build the next-generation of stealth bombers. The project is so secretive that state lawmakers are rushing to pass the bill because even the timeline can’t be disclosed. Defense industry experts say that lawmakers need to act before the summer recess.

As the Los Angeles Times’ Marc Lifsher reports, “Although the program isn’t specifically named, it is clear to aerospace industry insiders that it’s a reference to the military’s hotly contested competition to build as many as 100 new nuclear-capable bombers.”

The bill, which passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on Tuesday, would give Lockheed Martin and Boeing the advantage in the bidding. It’s written so narrowly that even other aerospace companies wouldn’t qualify. If Boeing and Lockheed Martin land the project, it could lead to thousands of quality jobs in California.

“State leaders recognize that aerospace is a critical industry to retain and grow well-paying jobs for Californians, especially highly skilled engineering and technical jobs,” Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for Lockheed said.

AB2389: No jobs, no tax credit

According to the Legislature’s committee analysis, the special corporate tax breaks are contingent on the jobs coming to California and the federal contract going to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

“While AB2389 requires a significant leap of faith,” the State Senate’s committee analysis of the bill observed, “the taxpayer doesn’t claim any credits unless they win the subcontract, and employ individuals in the state to perform the subcontract.”

The entire deal has understandably drawn the ire of Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s biggest competitor for the contract, Northrop Grumman, which says California is essentially picking sides.

“Legislation that favors only one company is detrimental to California’s future aerospace industry,” Northrop spokesman Tim Paynter wrote in an emailed statement to the Times.

That message is part of a last minute lobbying effort by Northrup to gum up the works for a bill that passed the Assembly on a 72 to 2 vote. State Senators are also quibbling with the governor over how to pay for the corporate welfare. According to the Sacramento Bee, Senate leaders want any tax credits to come from “California Competes,” an already-established fund to subsidize investments in businesses that create jobs.

Northrup “cements our strong partnership with Florida”

But there’s one big question that no one in Sacramento or the media has bothered to ask: Has Northrup Grumman already made its taxpayer-subsidized home in Florida?

Earlier this year, when Northrop announced its own deal with the state of Florida, the company promised that the agreement “further cements our strong partnership with Florida.”

“We’re extremely appreciative of the support we’ve received from the state of Florida and the local community in our continuing effort to drive our affordability and competitive position,” Tom Vice, Northrop Grumman corporate vice president and president, Aerospace Systems, said in a May 2014 press release, titled, “Governor Scott announces major Northrop Grumman expansion in Brevard County.”

He added, “This expansion further cements our strong partnership with Florida, and will greatly benefit our employees, customers and shareholders.”

To which Scott gleefully replied, “This is a huge victory for families on the Space Coast. We are excited that Northrop Grumman has decided to expand here in Florida, which could bring up to 1,800 new jobs to Brevard County.”

Florida’s deal with Northrop included reimbursable grants for employee training funded through Enterprise Florida, its public-private partnership program to lure investment to the Sunshine State.

“This highly competitive project was more than two years in the making, and we are excited to once again partner with Northrop Grumman to bring jobs to Florida,” Secretary of Commerce and president & CEO of Enterprise Florida, Gray Swoope, said in the May press release.

“The year of big corporate subsidies”

That makes Northrup’s recent concerns about California’s legislation and its detrimental effects on “California’s future aerospace industry” seem disingenuous.

Regardless of who wins, the whole thing stinks for taxpayers and believers in free market principles. While the California Legislature ponders new regulations on Uber and other ride-sharing companies of the new economy, it’s considering sweetheart deals for defense contractors from the old economy. Other industries will no doubt copy the model and play state governments against each other to provide them with more corporate welfare.

“This appears to be the year for big corporate subsidies,” Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters astutely notes. “A big tax break for the movie industry is moving through the Capitol, and Brown and legislators are working on ‘incentives’ to persuade Tesla tycoon Elon Musk to locate a big battery factory in the state.”

Both states are in the corporate welfare business. It just comes down to which state can offer more “incentives” to get the jobs. Which team are you rooting for: the Florida Northrup Grummans or the California Boeing Lockheed Martins?

“We are reorganizing and realigning our research-and-technology operations to better meet the needs of our Commercial Airplanes and Defense, Space & Security business units, as well as our government R&D customers,” Greg Hyslop, general manager of Boeing Research & Technology, said in a press release. “With these changes, we are enhancing our ability to provide effective, efficient and innovative technology solutions.”

This will also be a relatively permanent change. According to the press release, “The new research centers will consolidate technology development of strategic importance to Boeing over the long-term — up to 30 years into the future.”

While it may appear to be good news that California will have a new research and development site for decades to come, the true impact of the restructuring is less heartening.

Missouri, Alabama and South Carolina are expected to gain between 300 and 400 jobs from the realignment. Washington state will lose between 800 and 1,200, and California will see somewhere between 200 and 300 research and development jobs leave. This follows news from September that Boeing planned to shutter a manufacturing plant in Long Beach and lay off some 2,000 workers.

The trend is clear: Boeing is moving jobs away from the old epicenters of manufacturing and design in Washington and California. Now, more and more jobs are moving toward states throughout the South. The closure of the manufacturing plant, and the more recent loss of hundreds of white collar jobs, display California’s vulnerabilities with retaining talent in both high- and low-paying fields.

Positive sign

However, in a positive sign for Californians who would like to see more manufacturing jobs brought back to the state, Gov. Jerry Brown and local politicians in Long Beach are currently lobbying Boeing to build a manufacturing plant for its 777x jetliner in Southern California. Bringing the new manufacturing plant to Southern California would be huge for the local economy. Boeing will need to create more than 4 million square feet of manufacturing space, and thousands of workers will be needed.

However, it is unclear whether or not California will end up being chosen as the site (or if the Golden State even has a chance). California hasn’t disclosed what it is offering Boeing, but at least two states have disclosed their incentives.

Washington state originally offered a $9 billion tax incentive package to Boeing, but a machinist union shot down the proposal and Boeing moved on to evaluate other offers. The Missouri state legislature offered its own $1.7 billion tax incentive package.

Given California’s pro-union climate and its less-than-friendly business climate, it’s unlikely that the state could win the contract when competing against the likes of Missouri, Alabama, Utah, Texas and other states with laws not as friendly to labor unions.

However, California’s major advantage is its workforce. People have been making airplanes for decades in Southern California, and the institutional knowledge is considered valuable. Whether or not California can lean on some of its natural advantages, in the face of impediments to business development, remains to be seen. But if it succeeds, it could be a turning point for a state that has shed thousands of manufacturing jobs in recent years.

The company will begin laying off workers in 2014. The plant, which employs around 2,000 workers, will be shut by 2015. Boeing delivered its final C-17, a four-engine cargo jet designed to carry massive loads throughout the world, to the U.S. Air Force just one week before the announcement.

The closure of the plant, the last remaining major airplane assembly unit in Southern California, marks the end of an era for the region, which was once the center of the booming aerospace economy.

An August 2012 report from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation laid out just how important the aerospace economy was to Southern California:

“At the height of the Cold War, 15 of the 25 largest aerospace companies in the United States were based in Southern California. Today, all but a handful of the largest of those original firms have closed their doors, have moved elsewhere, or have been absorbed through a wave of mergers and consolidations that swept through the industry in the 1990s. The industry is considerably more concentrated today than in past decades, especially for companies whose primary customer is the U.S. Government.

“In 1987, California accounted for one in four aerospace jobs nationally, and in Los Angeles County, the share was one in ten. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Department of Defense (DOD) sharply curtailed procurement spending. In 1995, DOD spending fell below $50 billion for the first time since 1982. Nowhere in the country were the changes in Pentagon outlays more apparent than in Southern California.

“With the end of the Cold War came defense budget cuts and military base closures. Aerospace companies in the region met the challenge by merging with one another and consolidating operations. Many smaller contractors were forced to close their doors or look for business outside the industry. Already in a recession, Southern California’s economy went into a tailspin. The severe contraction of the aerospace industry added a structural component to the downturn. As the business cycle turned up again elsewhere in the country, the permanent loss of thousands of aerospace jobs in the region led to a longer and deeper recession in Southern California.”

Shocked

Although the plant’s closure had long been expected, several workers were shocked, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Vince Breen, a structural mechanic, told the Times, “It’s like a mortuary in there. We were stunned.”

According to the Times, the plant was once bustling enough that workers placed flags on their cars so that they could find them in the massive parking lot.

Boeing has announced that it does not plan to move production for any other planes to the shuttered 1.1 million-square-foot facility. What will happen to the closing plant remains unclear.