From the Globe this morning, two articles that raise the question: Exactly what has our governor accomplished on our behalf over the last 3+ years?
Massachusetts losing population, trailing in jobs:
Paul Harrington, an economist at Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies, discounted housing prices for the exodus. “I think that’s a tired excuse for poor performance,” he said, criticizing Governor Mitt Romney, saying he failed to turn around the jobs market. The governor, a venture capitalist, swept into office promising to woo CEOs and their jobs to the state. Since the third quarter of 2003, the nation has added jobs at four times the rate Massachusetts did, said Harrington.
To be fair, I don’t see how you can divorce the job market and the crushing real estate market when it comes to population. The state is becoming house-poor; but wouldn’t it have been great if Romney was the guy he said he was?
The perils are hidden in plain sight. The seedbed of a nation is now an old blue corner, the six states mustering fewer people than Florida alone. Massachusetts and Rhode Island are losing total population — a rarity in today’s America and a red flag for employers. Youth are fleeing to other parts of America. The region is aging rapidly — Maine is soon to be America’s oldest state. Major New England corporations sell out and aren’t replaced. Scarcely any firms (except occasional catches in the hot biotechnology sector) consider moving in. Acute problems range from excessive housing costs to thickets of inhibiting state and local regulations.
Look at their evaluation of the energy issue in particular, and the shortcomings of Romney’s approach — wait a minute, does he have an approach? — are obvious.
So… do you want a governor to follow in Romney’s footsteps? Or something completely different?