I don’t know … I should have loved this column, which pretty much trashes what can currently be made of the “Romney economic record” — in other words, how the Massachusetts economy performed from 2003-2006: Lost jobs, jobs and people moving out of state, you know the drill. And yeah, it’s bad.
But I just don’t believe that that’s the “Romney economic record”. To the extent you can attribute employment trends to state government’s policies, I think you have to extend that blame to previous governors … and yes, legislatures. (The authors bury the admitted limits of their thesis at the end.)
To my mind, Governors just don’t have that much control over the economy in the present. Gov. Patrick’s got the right idea — faster permitting, aggressively attracting businesses, etc. — but I don’t know how much that shows up in the state’s bottom line within a few years. The big gestures are investments in infrastructure and labor force (education), and those benefits may not show up for many years.
In other words, the 2003-2006 economy is much more the Weld-Cellucci-Swift-Finneran-Bulger-Birmingham economy than the Romney economy. We’re living the Romney economy, well, now, and the next few years. No, I don’t expect it’ll be much better. I agree with the author’s stated thesis, but only going forward, not on what already happened.
the executive branch can do little to improve the economy dramatically in a short period of time — but they can [and some have] done quite a bit to damage the economy in a short period of time.
<
p>
I do agree on infrastructure — but I encourage the idea that infrastructure isn’t merely roads and bridges and public transit — it’s also things like public parks and good schools, things that improve the quality of life of employees when they’re not at work. Cost of housing is a barrier to business in Massachusetts, but the positive quality of life attributes can more than overcome that cost.
This is one of those excellent points that gets lost in our elections, won and lost as they are by 30 second spots and by theater criticism and sports commentary masquerading as political coverage.
I never thought that I would agree totally with you, Charley. As someone who really did not like Romney’s governorship, I thought that the article was a typical Globe, liberal bash job.
Massachusetts continues to hemmorage young and old alike to other states. The question is why. It is my contention as well as many others that we have a dispropotionate segement of our society in Massachusetts who elect career legisltors who’s only intent is to be re elected. To do that aforementioned legislators will do anything to assuage the constituency, which is engage in profligate spending. Our taxes are going through the roof. Local taxes are crushing the new and young homeowner. The general cost of living is substantially higher than in other parts of the country. Our infrastructure is falling down. Posters have mentioned that our quality of life is reason enough to stay. Wage earners don’t have the luxury of worrying about quality of life, there are more pressing matters.
<
p>
Until Massachusetts gets a two party system back resulting in hot debate over a budget rather than a rubber stamp and pols, hacks, and criminal lining their pockets, then the hemmorage will continue unabated.
<
p>
I understand that our present governor has every intention of making Massachusetts a “safe haven” state for illegal aliens. If accurate, we will be driving just another nail into our collective coffin. I never thought that I would ever entertain the thought that I would leave my beloved home that I have spend several scores of years raising my family and caring for like a child. rest assured that I pay a lot of taxes and never burdened the public schools with my childrens education. Leaving Massachusetts has sadly become an option.
The legislature has enough been short-sighted as it is. Republican governors have attempted to make a virtue out of being shortsighted. The result? The starvation of all sorts of projects of needed resources. I fail to see why increasing the ranks of the enablers of the short-sighted would in any manner improve our infrastructure.
<
p>
In fact, it would promise its eventual demise.
<
p>
To my mind, our best hopes are an activist governor, an engaged citizenship, and more Democratic primary upsets.
Sal DiMasi calls the shots—just as Tom finneran did and all of the previous speakers. Well, Kevarian was usually out having a snack.
<
p>
One man runs the state and you find that appropriate. I would call it Stalinist, but folks in MA are apparently happy with Stalinism. Until there is someone that will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes and be able to make it stick, you can sit there and wring your hands until the last taxpayer leaves the state—then what. You won the battle and lost the war!
I’m not sure. Are you responding to me or someone else?
<
p>
So people are leaving the state because we don’t have a “two-party system”? I don’t think so. I think Ed Glaeser of the Pioneer Institute offers a bit more of a compelling reason here. (Hint: it has to do with housing permits and housing costs, not the strength of the Republican Party).
<
p>
Given that places with “one-party systems” like Atlanta and even Rhode Island have been growing quite a bit faster than Massachusetts, I think the answer has little to do with politics and a lot more to do with housing.
The root cause of the problem is a state legislature that does what the hell it pleases. The Big Dig—REMEMBER THE BIG DIG? Billions of tax dollars in the trough. The conspirators were democrat. Many pols at the state house had their families, friends , and constituents on the Big Dig payroll.
<
p>
If you want to blow smoke up someones backside—fine. I’ve been watching every move on Beacon hill for forty years. This state is going down the crapper with the democratic party at the helm, and everyone thinks this is peachy keen. When these idiots finally succeed in hitting the iceberg, the enablers will hop in their lifeboats and row on up to Vermont and all will “tut—tut, I told you so.” No one is responsible. The debacle happened all by itself and no one is accountable.
<
p>
But that is par for the course for this state.
<
p>
It’s all for the children!
Aside from being ungrammatical, this is at least partly false, and you know it, unless you’ve forgotten the Big Dig was built entirely under Republican governors.
<
p>
Link:
<
p>
<
p>
Enough. MCRD, you are now on notice for putting up a long string of unsupported assertions. You’ll play by the rules, and link to reputable sources, or you’ll be cut loose. Thanks in advance.
<
p>
Quality of life isn’t a 1 or a 0. Everyone, paycheck earning or not, will make quality of life decisions on a daily basis. Trade offs between housing cost and commute time. Trade offs between better schools and higher tax burdens. Trade offs between stressful but flexible drives or mass transit. Trade offs between Red Sox bleacher seats for the family or a new DVD player.
<
p>
But maybe as a person who “pay[s] a lot of taxes” and could afford to send his kids to private school for K-12 (plus private college?!), you might not understand that even the lowly hourly workers also get to make quality of life decisions.
Simultaneously —eighty hours a week. Months on end without a day off. Don’t talk to me about hourly wages!
wage earning as you did, you were able to make quality of life decisions. So what’s up with your initial post claiming that “wage earners don’t have the luxury of worrying about quality of life”?
<
p>
Your attempt to make the superior quality of life in Massachusetts irrelevant to “wage earners” is laughable.
First, you claimed to have been a multi-year veteran of the US military, and I would suspect that you would be entitled to a lot of government benefits from such involvement
<
p>
Then you claimed to have been involved in the health-care industry.
<
p>
Now you are claiming to have “worked three friggin jobs Simultaneously —eighty hours a week. Months on end without a day off”
<
p>
I’m sorry, but that progression does not compute. Possibly, unless you were working in the health care industry (and some other industry, on the side) while you were in the military.
<
p>
Which is it? Military? Health care? Something else? Were you claiming to be in the military while you were actually in the National Guard?
<
p>
BTW, my mother in law, while she was in the USofA was oftentimes ask by her nursing-home employer to work double shifts. Does that count, in your estimation, for separate jobs? That was in Connecticut, by the way, not Massachusetts.
I asked that question several weeks ago…I was told this (after being told I write like I’m fifteen):
<
p>
<
p>
So stop being lazy, raj.
Actually, you do write like a 15 year old. A very intelligent 15 year old, I will note. Much better than a moronic 55 year old.
Massachusetts population growth has been flat. Last year the net gain/loss in population was +3825 residents.
<
p>
Since 1999, Massachusetts has ranked no higher than 27th in State & Local tax burden. (#1 being the worst)
Certainly high housing costs relative to incomes is a big problem, but it appears that the deflating housing bubble will correct some of that. Otherwise, the quality of life in ‘Blue’ Massachusetts is pretty good, and certainly rates much higher than any ‘Red’ state that you can name, especially in terms of education quality, healthcare, murder rates, divorce rates, and percentage of wingnuts.
<
p>
The bigger question is why you are still living here if you dislike Dems so much. The GOP brand has become toxic, even in MA where there’s been a recent history of divided Govt. Face it, the modern GOP can’t govern, and there is not much that you can do besides accept it and start over.
Sure, Democrats screw up, don?t always get along, have sharp elbows, get blowjobs, all that. But Democrats (generally) believe that Govt has a role to play, and that elected officials work for us. Mitt Romney never worked for MA, he worked for Mitt, and as a result he wasn’t going to get a second term here.
<
p>
The beauty of it is, you can go wherever you like. It’s a big country. I hear that Utah is nice.
Show me a politician who nobly declines to take credit for a booming economy, and I’ll show you a politician who shouldn’t be blamed for a bad economy.
If Romney is going to take credit for other policies that were actually spearheaded by the legislature (i.e. the health care reform), then he’s got to face the music on the bad parts of his tenure as well, like the economy.
<
p>
And while you may be correct about the lagtime in the long-term economy, it’s true that a Governor can play a significant role in promoting the state to businesses (i.e. involvment in negotiations, “advertising” the state, stressing the advantages of relocating or expanding in MA, etc.). Since Romney trashed the state in the last two years of his term, he didn’t help much there.
But I just think the article pushes a whole lot of data out there that may or may not have anything to do with Romney himself. The question is how did he react? As you say, not well.
Opposition party unwanted and uneeded!
<
p>
http://www.dailymail…
On what basis do you imagine anything like this happening?
why are you complaining around here? You want a stronger opposition party? Go out and make one. Either guide the GOP out of its self-made mess [both in-state by Romney pissing on MA every chance he got and nationally due to not just GWB and DC, but the GOP-controlled Congress of 00-06 as well].
<
p>
That, or crank up the juice for a third party, or start your own. Whatever.
<
p>
But don’t come to the party that’s had success reaching out to voters in an attempt to govern wisely and ask them to help you change out the power structure — the power structure that was voted in democratically incidentally.
You’re right to be concerned that the political party with different ideals from you has strong control of both houses and the connah office. Get out and raise some opposition — don’t complain about it here.
The August 2007 issue of Scientific American has a lengthy article by some of the participants in the IPCC about global warming. You might find it interesting.
It should be hard for someone to take credit for anything when they were absent the state for so many days in the year, campaigning for President. Our economy is dismal and is not growing. We are trying to compete with growth states and cheaper places to live. The governor is on the right track, but without a stronger economy and any prioritization by the federal government and our esteemed President, it’s an uphill battle.
<
p>
Romney is all about appearance and money. Can he buy this election? Can he outpace legitimate reporting which should show his non credentials as governor? How dumb is America (or at least the Republicans)? Stay tuned. As Romney hardly failed in a vacuum, this is discouraging.