| Romney's Record Command Respect |
From a recent ad from the Romney campaign:
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.”
And the Washington Post responded to this claim as follows:
The Romney campaign based this claim on a comparison of every Massachusetts governor who held office during the past decade — looking at the full term for each person, even if it extends past the decade mark. The list includes Jane Swift, Romney and Deval Patrick, in chronological order.
The first thing we should point out is that we’re looking at very different time frames and economic conditions for each governor.
The point remains — did Romney tell the truth or not? Based on the premise that the governor created more jobs that the other governors during the period, then the answer is "Yes!"
But the premise is the real problem with the assertion (no offense to Romney): The whole argument of whether Romney created jobs in Massachusetts is flawed.
Governors, legislatures, politicians do not create jobs, nor do we want them to. The intense innovation and rigorous scrutiny required by the marketplace in order to respond to consumer demand requires too much of the public sector, which moves slowly at best, jostled by political pressures and interest-group wrangling.
Not that deliberation is necessarily a bad thing. The less that government can do for us, the better.
So, a better question would be — did Romney contribute to a friendly, pro-business climate in Massachusetts?
Another claim from Romney's ad:
“He balanced every budget without raising taxes.”
And the Washington Post then comments:
We mentioned in a previous column that Romney promised not to raise taxes during one of his 2002 gubernatorial debates. Here’s what he said:
“Let me make this very clear, I will not, in my budget next year, have any tax increases. I will fight taxes at every turn. The problem with increasing taxes is it puts a burden on working families. They can’t afford it . . . I will not sign a tax increase passed by the Legislature.”
True to his word, Romney didn’t approve any general hikes in tax rates, but he did increase fees and close tax loopholes, both of which brought in additional revenue.
Romney was above board on the matter of not raising taxes. I think that prospective voters should commend Romney for closing tax loopholes. This line of attacking in bringing down debt and deficit without hurting job creators directly would limit the scope of government while paying off some of the monumental debt eating at this country. As for raising fees, one may suspect that Romney acquiesced on this issue, or the legislature which was 80% Democratic at the time (http://web.archive.org/web/20071221092907/http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS08/312130115/-1/news08) would have pushed through tax increases on targeted interests, hurting Romney's base and party (this line of reasoning is speculative).
Romney enacted programs to decentralized zoning laws for housing construction:
In an effort to spur housing creation across the Commonwealth, Governor Mitt
Romney today unveiled a package of comprehensive reforms to the
state's affordable housing law, known as Chapter 40B. Mitt
Romney said the changes will make the law "a tool rather than a club"
and give cities and towns more control over the planning and development process
in their communities. (July 13, 2003 —http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/09/2003-july-december-mitt-romney-press.html)
He also launched a PR campaign to bring businesses to the state:
Kicks off multi-million dollar "Massachusetts, It's all Here" campaign
CAMBRIDGE – As part of the effort to rev up the Massachusetts economy,
Governor Mitt Romney
today kicked off a multi-million dollar integrated marketing campaign
to attract new jobs and businesses to the Bay State.
"Massachusetts is one of the most attractive states in the nation in which to
do business
because of our tremendous resources. We have a highly educated
workforce, some of the world's finest health care institutions and
top-of-the-line infrastructure," said Romney. "Now, we need to do a better job
of getting the word out." (July 17, 2003)
http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/09/2003-july-december-mitt-romney-press.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/09/nation/la-na-romney-budget-massachusetts-20120609
The LA Times provided a more conciliatory explanation of what Governor Romney endured taking on a legislature which had dominated the statehouse for over fifty years:
In Massachusetts, the governor proposes a budget, but a Legislature dominated by the opposing party can ignore it and adopt its own. The governor can veto spending, line by line, but lawmakers, unbowed, can then assert their power to override — a ritual of Romney's tenure.
Not enough has been presented about the dominant one-party machinery that has sand-bagged the Bay State for so long. Is it any wonder that Massachusetts has been losing house seats every decade? High taxes, spending, and regulation cannot be undone by one governor over one term. California has also struggled with this see-saw oppositional politicking, in which Democrats spend through the surpluses, then leave a Republican to do the dirty work of cutting costs and government, only to be demonized by the Democrats again, who come to power and revert back to the tax-and-spend spree.
The LA Times continues:
Romney was unsparing in his vetoes, risking political fallout far and wide. He reduced allocations for state police and local sheriff's departments. He deleted spending on suicide prevention, emergency food aid, job training, higher education, treatment for gambling addiction and services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. His rationale was simple: The state couldn't afford it.
I wish I had read about these cuts while Romney was outmaneuvering his primary opponents. It's a shame that Romney cannot boast of many of his achievements as Governor, for political reasons at least, since doing so would alienate law and order or medical professional interests, or in the case of RomneyCare, it would alienate the GOP base and give Obama a line of attack.
Still, Romney's attention to fiscal discipline is admirable, especially because he was making decisions on behalf of the best interests of his state, not just for his campaign. A private email communicated this integrity:
In an email that he sent to advisors on Nov. 4, 2006, Romney defined his choice: leave the cutting to the new governor who would be elected in a few days or "let the fur fly" by slashing spending one last time before launching his 2008 presidential campaign weeks later.
"I hate appearing as if I am just playing national politics with 9Cs when in fact this is about getting spending under control for the state and a new admin. Hmmm," Romney wrote.
Whether interpreted as cynical political calculation or executive altruism, Romney considers the media as well as the mission in making decisions in the best interests of those under his rule.
I am more impressed, not less, following the fact-checking from these and other media sources. I hope that more voters will feel the same.