CNBC itself didn’t expect Massachusetts to break into the top 5 for the first time in its annual survey of the top states for business. CNBC’s reporter declared that MA’s presence in the top 5 “was a bit of a surprise to me, quite frankly,” and the story on the website starts off:
One of the surprises in CNBC’s 2010 edition of America’s Top States for Business may be that Massachusetts cracked the top five for the first time. The state only made the top ten one other year (2009) and until then had only finished as high as 15 (2008).
Interesting that MA’s three highest finishes ever have been under Deval Patrick’s governorship. Sorry, Charlie. đŸ˜‰
Anyway, the factors are more or less what you’d expect: costs of doing business (high wages, high rents, and high utility costs were mentioned – not, interestingly, an especially high tax burden) and the cost of living remain relatively high (MA ranked #39 and #41 respectively), but MA’s rankings in education (#1), access to capital (#2), and technology and innovation (#3), as well as quality of life (#6), pushed us to #5 overall.
You can watch the CNBC report here:
Posted the 2009 results this time last year. The Patrick campaign did not have it in there materials at that time. It’s in all materials now. We all need to keep digging to make sure the truth gets out there to the general public. How often do you think Patrick will reference this when Baker goes into his spiel?
<
p>2010 – Massachusetts #5
2009 – Massachusetts #8
2008 – Massachusetts #15
<
p>Wrong direction? What?
That’s what you get for campaigning on OLD news. Now I want him to trot out the Taxachusetts canard!
’tis true. But, it’s also where (I think!) we’ll start winning in the future. As fossil fuel prices go up, those states which bit the bullet early to install more renewable generation will be better off. We’re not going to be able to compete on cost with WA or OR or ID — their hydro can’t be matched — but we can increase supply which isn’t susceptible to swings in fossil prices. Natural gas is long-term linked with the price of oil because folks can move 4000 lb tin cans on the stuff. Coal is destined to get more expensive, both due to worker safety regs, environmental regs on mountaintop removal, and carbon emissions.
<
p>States with a variety of electricity sources and a variety of renewable sources will be in the best shape over the next 30 years w.r.t. electricity prices. We may be paying more now, but I think we’ll be paying less later.
How much of this is Devals doing?
<
p>It seems that, if anything one can argue that Deval is being essentially a caretaker governor continuing Romney’s policies on economics and fiscal issues. What changes did Deval accomplish that actually caused these rumblings of economic success?
<
p>Also can’t one argue that his plans to raise taxes will actually hurt this success and alter this friendly climate?
Can’t progressives argue that this climate is still not attached to actual, tangible job creation and that these successes are still not helping the state’s own perilous fiscal environment that is forcing the cutting and gutting of so many essential services?
<
p>I am sorry but whenever there is a problem like deficits, Deval’s broken promises on spending (from 1000 new cops, to education, to local aid), joblessness, the budget problems, patronage, etc. you simply blame Deval’s predecessors and say he ‘inherited a mess’, but whenever there is a modicum of success about MA from these improving numbers to our high test scores you allow him to take credit. He can’t have it both ways. Either he is responsible for real tangible policies that had direct results and consequences from the positive (these numbers, education) to the negative (broken promises) or he is responsible for neither and simply is the guy on the job. Would these numbers be any different under Healy? If we (correctly) say that politicians can’t be blamed for the present economic climate isn’t it hypocritical to praise them for the successes that take us out of the climate?
<
p>I am not arguing pro or anti-Deval, and agree this hurts Baker and he is way off message. But I find the argument that he is successful because of these numbers about as persuasive as the argument that George Bush’s foreign policy was successful since no new attacks happened under his watch or that Bill Clinton was an economic genius. It seems that these events, while its indisputable that they happened under their tenure, its less clear if they happened because of their tenure.
<
p>The proof is in the pudding, and so far you have only shown that the pudding has been served on his watch, not that he mixed and cooked it for us.
Crazy much? Yeesh. This is, basically, one long comment of denial.
<
p>The canard about raising taxes or lowering taxes helping or hurting business is so overtired, and totally debunked. As my husband is fond of saying, the Laffer curve (the idea that cutting taxes makes up for the drop in tax receipts by increased economic activity) might have some legitimacy maybe…at the top level of taxation…say a top tax rate of 90% or something.
<
p>However, the thing the Laffer curve people never prove is that very historically low level of taxes can be cut and do the same thing. It has basically been proven over and over and over again that it doesn’t. Hence disgusting budget deficits under GW Bush, made worse yes by gov stimulus funding, but really, structurally, a Republican problem – they cut taxes, and the revenue drops, and we don’t make up the shortfall with increased economic activity.
<
p>This governor has presided over responsible budgets, decreased our bond rating, so borrowing for capital expenses (which is common) is much cheaper. He saved our ass from the Weld-administration (Baker-led) big dig financing debacle. These are only two of many examples of how this Governor actually governed as opposed to used it as a stepping stone for some other ambition. This Gov has his head in the game, and thank god he did, it came just on time to save us from being California or New York or other states with the real, serious deficit and budget problems. We have got off light.
<
p>Healey would have truly continued the policies of “magic math” of the Romney administration and we’d be in a disaster right now.
<
p>Patrick has made the best choices of a number of sucky ones, he has done the best anyone could do with the national problems we find ourselves in. These are very real, tangible, and measurable effects of his tenure. Four years is enough to have begun to undo the damage of previous administrations.
increased our bond rating – in other words, lowered our rate for borrowing money. We are, the ratings agencies say, a good bet for lending money to. This is despite the crazy big dig debt problem thanks to Republicans!
Romney’s policies. Bond rating agencies, those that allowed us to renegotiate bonds to lower rates saving millions of dollars were directly related to Patrick’s oversight over the state, this was directly noted by the rating agencies, not pundits, etc. In addition, if you didn’t notice Patrick had to navigate the state through the worst recession since the great depression and has positioned the state to come out better and stronger than most states. From that your are talking about spending? Makes no sense to me, that has nothing to do with past administrations. No one said that the economic crash was due to Mitt Romney.
<
p>When you noted that Patrick raising taxes could hurt this friendly environment. Patrick actually cut business tax.
<
p>No tangible job creation. Every month in 2010 created more jobs, that’s tangible.
<
p>What this post does is add to the already existing positive facts that have been stated by non-partisan economic indicators and ratings. Massachusetts has fared better than most states and is positioned to do better in the future. Ratings have specifically point to Patrick’s work.
<
p>The CNBC rating just adds to that fact.
Good. I am glad you both took the time to convince and persuade me that Deval has actually done tangible things to improve the economy and you tied these indicators directly to policies he persued. I have my issues with Deval, but the choice to me is between Deval and Stein. His mainstream opponents are not serious about governing and have proven time and time again they do not know what they are talking about. I expected that from Cahill, but Baker has been a huge disappointment. My main criticism from Deval boosters is that these indicators and numbers alone do not justify the credit, and that is all I was trying to say. I dislike it when politicians from either party take credit for trends and indicators that may or may not have resulted from their policies. Clinton getting credit for a dot com bubble that happened because a lot of people bought into a new product they would have bought under Bush or Dole seemed suspect. Bush’s disastrous foreign policy being defended because it ‘prevented’ attacks also seemed suspect. So when David and others simply asserted that good news for MA has to have been caused by good policies by Deval, I was again naturally skeptical. So again thanks for pointing to actual facts to back up the assertions it is greatly appreciated.
<
p>As for the Romney/spending bit, whenever I have attacked Deval for some draconian and heartless cuts to social services his defenders have argued that he inherited a bad fiscal situation from Romney. Aka the blame cannot be laid at Devals doorstep. But when the economy is starting to rev up again they claim this is Deval’s doing. So to me this begged the question which is it? did Deval inherit a mess or is MA in good shape, it can’t be both. Some of this economic success has to be due to the policies of other governors simply because trends like this don’t start over night. We have had 16 years of Republican governors creating a better business climate that might be responsible for these trends as well. In truth the responsibility is probably shared between them. Also when the constitution requires a functioning balanced budget it is hard for that to be solely a bragging right for a governor, that said, he has balanced it by cutting and raising revenue, not be fudging the numbers like CA and IL have and that is certainly praiseworthy. He also, in spite my cynicism, is committed to fulfilling his two terms, also praiseworthy compared to his predecessors. A lot of where he has failed has a lot more to do with the inertia and corruption of our legislature than with his own rule. But I do blame him for working with the corrupt instead of working to utilize the impressive grassroots organization he assembled to reform Beacon Hill. Instead he let his organization stay dormant until he needs them again. From a former precienct captain that is hardly the way to show the grassroots love, but that is another discussion entirely.
It’s not Romney, don’t know why you keep repeating that when it’s not the case. The argument is the the entire economy went down the crapper. Revenue went down, not only in MA but the entire country, or the entire world for that matter. In that environment you need to doing things a little differently. Do you agree? Deval Patrick’s response in the balancing cuts and raising revenue drew rave reviews from rating agencies and put MA on the path to beat other states in recovery. Why do you keep on talking about Romney? Mitt created the world economic collapse?
First off John I agreed with your points and said you convinced me. Other have blamed the structural problems in the MA fiscal picture, not the economy mind you, but the structural problems, on Romney and Republican mismanagement. I am arguing, and I am doing this as no fan of Romney, that a lot of good came out of that era for improving our business climate and making the state business friendly. Patrick has not really deviated from that and has done a lot of reasonable things from corporate tax breaks, the movie tax breaks, to incentives for biotech that make the state attractive. He has sold the state a lot better than Romney has as well. So for that he should be praised, but it would have been harder for him to do that had the MA Dems, and the national party, not embraced more Republican ideas regarding business incentives and reducing corporate taxes. Dukakis would soak the corporations to pay for programs and that ended up hurting is in the long run even if he was a great Governor. Weld changed that attitude, and if we are going to give credit to Patrick for that we should also acknowledge that he is building on the success of his predecessors.
Team Charlie Baker is back on the attack, took issue that Massachusetts is a great place do to business.
<
p>
<
p>Cost of doing business:
<
p>2010: 39
2009: 40
2008: 41
<
p>Which direction is that going again Charlie? Up or down?