In response to my post yesterday detailing how former GOP governors turned 2012 candidates did at job creation during their tenures, the Romney campaign e-mailed some statistics to put Romney’s 1.6 percent overall job growth rate number into additional context.
Under Romney, unemployment decreased to 4.7 percent from 5.6 percent. The number of jobs — based on the number of those employed — increased by nearly 50,000. That’s more than Romney’s predecessor (Republican Jane Swift, who was governor from April 2001 to January 2003) or successor (Democrat Deval Patrick) can claim; under Swift, Massachussetts lost about 60,000 jobs and under Patrick, who became governor in 2007, the state has lost about 50,000 jobs.
Furthermore, the Romney campaign says that “between January 2003 and December 2006, Massachusetts was one of seventeen states to accelerate its job growth every year (creating more jobs each year than were created the year before), and one of only two states — Illinois being the other — to accelerate its job growth by at least 20,000 jobs each year. Massachusetts was one of the top ten most-improved states (seventh overall) in terms of job creation, going from 49th in the nation in the first year of the Romney Administration to 36th in the nation in the last year.”
Politicians don't create jobs, and it's kind of pathetic NRO would use this as a reason for qualification for office. Correlation is not causation.
What specific policies did Romney (or any other pol) implement that resulted in job creation is fair game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What specific policies did Romney (or any other pol) implement that resulted in job creation is fair game."
Exactly.
Context is everything. Nominal changes in any statistics on anything can be contorted beyond belief.
And, yes, few (if any) jobs are "created" by government policies. Most government policies simply raise the bar for private sector job creation.
Want more jobs? Cut the bureaucracy, reduce mindless regulation and streamline small business and job creation. In a digitalized, on-line, world this should be the number one priority of any government at any level and, with technology costs falling, should be easily and cost effectively accomplished these days.
But the bureaucratic mindset isn't exactly aligned with this goal, is it? If you can't interfere with business, how can you justify your existence (and fat salary, benefits and pension)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou keep selling those garbage numbers, but I'm not buying, sorry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGuess what.... by all this talk about 'government creating jobs'....your basically admitting that your a STATIST who believes that government is the solution to everything.
No wonder government has never ever gotten smaller, never had a big program disbanded, and never had an agency eliminated under a republican president... NEVER.
Any people don't think we need another party. Its this kinda talk about of the mouths of republicans that makes me think maybe we do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Merthin - this type of comparison is inherently silly. Overwhelmingly, job creation in a given state is a function of macro factors that a governor has no power over. To take Romney's example: Swift's tenure included the post 9/11 downturn, Romney's included the start of the late 2000s boom, while Patrick was handed the 2008 hospital pass. Similarly, Texas' job creation record comes down to basically one factor: high oil prices.
Even to the very limited extent that state policy is a factor, there's generally a long lead time, which means that it usually not until the next term that the effect of the state policies set during a governor's term can be evaluated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Similarly, Texas' job creation record comes down to basically one factor: high oil prices."
Ah, no.
External Link
Oil has fluctuated wildly but was almost $30 a barrel in part of Jan. 2009.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
I'll raise one other point: What kinds of jobs? Trash collectors or software engineers? Government-sphere jobs or real, private sector jobs?
I agree with most of the other commenters except on one point. There are things Governors can do which make their states more attractive to employers than other states. Less regulation, lower taxes, etc. Those things do matter. Texas has benefitted from higher oil prices, yes. But Texas has also benefitted from California's implosion as a sound place to do business. Texas has also benefitted from quite a bit of Federal investment (DoD spending, for example, in places like San Antonio) and BRAC consolidation. Governors in Southern States have generally benefitted from the rust belt social welfare and taxation policies of liberal New England. (and snow)
It's not as simple of "how many jobs" got "created", and ditto the commenter who pointed out that Government does not create jobs. Create a good business climate? Yes. Create jobs? Only "Gummint" jobs, which eat up the taxes of 10-20 citizens who aren't lucky enough to win the State Employee Cushy Job for Life Award.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many of those middle-class families can afford to only have $100 bills in their wallet?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat does that have to do with anything?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney, the nominee Nelson Rockefeller would have loved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow! Romney's Massachusetts ranked right up there with Illinois in job growth acceleration. I'm living in Illinois and had no idea I was in such a worker's paradise. Somehow I don't think we'll hearing Mitt tout this statistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGarbage in, garbage out. Swift and Patrick both governed during recessions they did not create. Romney (Jan 2003-Jan 2007) was in office between recessions. I'm not saying he had bad policies, and good policies can be hard to enacyt in a state like Mass., but comparisons to Swift and Patrick are useless. For the record I'd vote for Romney long, long, long before voting for his 3rd cousin once removed, Jon Huntsman, whose supposedly awesome job numbers are meaningless. Romney is definitely more innately conservative than Huntsman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe idea of creating jobs - growing an economic friendly environment is MASS is very difficult.
Anyone who knows the East Coast, the entrenched malaise provided by Democrats for decades, knows how trying amazing it is to see the job done via Mr. Romney in MA (besides the Health Care Reform).
The sophistry in the comments from readers, often reveals a juvenile nonsense - stuck on fashionable bias. It isn't conservatism. Serious conservatives welcome success, especially when it is empowering the Private Sector, and turning around failure. Those vilifying Romney all the time, in such a personal manner, remind one of Democrats dehumanizing the likes of the Gipper, GW Bush, Palin, Christie, etc. In fact, it reminds one of the conservative produced fashion which once vilified Ronald Reagan during his Second Term (the same happened to a great extent to W over fears about Iraq).
The big problem with Ms. Trinko's original offering, was not offering analysis about the overwhelming differences in the States - especially nightmares created by Democratic Partisan Monopolies. To do what Christie is doing, for example, is far more admirable than inheriting Texas as a Governor after GW Bush's successful two term tenure. The next President, whoever defeats Obama (God Willing), will be facing a nightmare, much like many deficit ridden, oppressively taxed, overtly regulated, northern East Coast disaster zones.
What is great about the field so far (except Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich), most of the Candidates are from Outside the Beltway, and have a good record as a CEO. Romney still may top the rest, might be the best for the run this time, simply because of his amazing Private Sector record as a proven CEO - the clout in economics, ability to turn failure around, etc. A Free Market Hero might just be the right ticket - even if the fashionable devotees will have another temper tantrum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent remarks
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe whole idea of government creating jobs is nonsense. Private sector is a true job creator, all government jobs except for military are part of wealth transfer between wealth creators and parasites.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlthough it may seem true at first to say that government has no role in creating jobs, such thinking it the result of limited analysis.
Most conservatives will readily agree that government is capable of taking actions (increasing taxes, adding regulations, creating economic uncertainty, etc.) that will greatly reduce the private sector's ability to create jobs. Thus the government can effectively destroy jobs.
If you agree with that statement, then you can't possibly also claim that government cannot create jobs, since governmental leadership which removes any of these impediments will effectively create jobs in the private sector.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust because government can destroy jobs, the reverse is not necessarily true. Yes, government could provide incentives, subsidies, etc. but the jobs created with sich are not truly private sector created jobs. They are simply a hybrid of government job. Case in point all of the ethanol jobs, and all other phony "green jobs". None of these would exist were it not for artificial support for uneconomic products provided by the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a rather silly sort of false dichotomy.
Just because I can destroy a piano doesn't mean I can build one.
Likewise, government has no clue as to how to create jobs. Period. It is comprised after all of people who have created precious few jobs themselves.
Go read "The Fatal Conceit". Hayek knew what he was about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Romney is almost as good as Blagojevich. There's something to think about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor once I wish a politician will come out and say, "I cannot create jobs and any politician who says that he can is a liar. What I will say is that I support policies that is not abrasive towards business, who in turn creates jobs, which is a positive sign of economic growth."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse