Romney's Numbers Fuzzy Too
With Rudy Giuliani's fuzzy-math claims about his performance with the New York City budget in the news, it's time to look at some suspect claims made by Mitt Romney about his performance in Massachusetts. "Elected in 2002, Governor Romney presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion" in Massachusetts, the candidate's official campaign biography says: "Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses. At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. Today the unemployment rate is lower, hundreds of companies have expanded or moved to Massachusetts and the state has added approximately 60,000 jobs in the last two years." There was near-recession from late 2000 to early 2002, then economic growth resumed nationally. That is, Romney became governor of Massachusetts at a time when all states had just experienced a cycle of budget problems because the weak economy caused tax revenues to fall; then during Romney's governorship years, all states experienced rising tax revenues as the economy strengthened, and all 50 states were in the black from 2003 to 2006. Anyone elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002 would have presided over four years of a strong economy and rising tax revenue, because this was the national trend.
Massachusetts employment? Here are the 10-year figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: they show Massachusetts employment peaked in early 2001, at the end of the tech bubble and before Romney took office, then declined until early 2004, and has risen since. That is, Massachusetts employment followed the pattern observed in all states with tech-based economies. Romney does not tell voters that Massachusetts employment declined in the first two years of his governorship -- though he's not to blame for that, since larger economic forces were the reason. Yet he claims credit for the rise in Massachusetts employment in the second two years of his term -- though he had nothing to do with that either, larger economic forces being the reason. There's something fundamentally slippery about Romney claiming he deserves dramatic credit for being in office at a time that his state merely followed the positive national economic trend.
In one of the candidate's television ads -- scripts are here -- the voice-over calls Romney "a Republican governor who turned around a Democratic state." If Massachusetts was turned around, Boston would be on the border of New York! The same television ad contains this substantively troubling statement by Romney: "I believe our laws ought to be written by the people, and not by unelected judges." Does this mean Romney favors direct democracy, using the ancient Greek model? The Framers considered and specifically rejected that idea, making the United States a representative democracy in which elected legislatures enact the laws. If Romney proposes to overturn the representative-government structure of the United States Constitution, he should say so. And though judge-bashing is a recurrent theme of politics for both parties, no American judge has ever "written" a law. Judicial decisions often impact public policy -- perhaps too often -- but having policy impact is not the same as writing laws. Roe versus Wade, for example, wasn't a law, it was a finding that most kinds of state prohibition of abortion were unconstitutional; setting aside whether Roe was correctly reasoned, the decision did not make a new law but rather overturned laws found to violate the Constitution. All candidates occasionally say dumb things, but Romney's "I believe our laws ought to be written by the people, and not by unelected judges" is spectacular because in just one sentence, he manages to mischaracterize two core principles of the American system of government.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Rudy & Mitt can get away with mis-statements and exaggerations because Americans have a short-memory.
Their experience is going to set them back and maybe do them in. Neither one has any foreign policy experience. While domestic issues are important if we don't settle IRAQ --- our domestic issues will suffer financial woes.
I had to live under Romney, and the guy essentially abandoned his job halfway through so he could run for President--good thing the Lieutenant Governor can also sign bills into law or else we would've really been in trouble. He also cut the budget right and left. An old coworker of mine told me a story about a house with a "Romney For Governor" sign on the front lawn right next to a fire station; the station closed due to budget cuts and then the house burned down. He went after fellow Republican Matt Amarello simply to flex his muscle, and had the good fortune of that ceiling panel collapse to justify getting rid of him. And don't believe his talk about vetoing stuff--the Massachusetts State Legislature could override his veto on party lines at any time.
You're exaggerating, but we get your point. The Democratic candidates aren't much better. They're running their campaigns with scripts written by Gore '00 and Kerry '04. We all know how well those worked. I had hopes for Obama. What a let down.
I decided to do what I did on '04. I'll vote for the Green Party even though I don't know who their candidate is yet and turn off the TV and radio until the election is over.
First, Mitt balanced the budget by taking a massive cut out of the revenue that was normally shared with the towns here. Five years later, the towns are still not up to the level of state funding pre-Romney. Many towns lost firefighters and police, among others. Mitt probably hasn't noticed that our property taxes rose dramatically because the towns still had to pay their bills!
Second, Mitt increased or created fees on everybody and everything. I saw a cartoon in the local paper today with a schoolkid whose outfit had about fifty little pockets, with each labelled for some fee s/he had to pay---remember when the kids only had to pay a little for afterschool sports, Mitt? Now, many kids have trouble coming up with the amounts the towns have to charge.
Last, it was hardly "activism" when the SJC said that when the Massachusetts constitution was written, no one thought to put in anything about gender in relationship to marriage. Therefore, unless and until an amendment was written, people could do as they pleased.
"I believe our laws ought to be written by the people,
and not by unelected judges." - Mitt R.
So much for the legislative branch.
Which, by the way, in Massachusetts is 90% Democrat.
Talk about your 'veto-proof majority'!
The position of 'Governor' in Massachusetts
is almost entirely ceremonial. Unless something
bad happens, bad enough that the Governor might
be assigned some blame, the legislature just ignores him.
Seems like Mitt wants to get even.
We need the legislature. "The People" writing laws can never happen. A good legislative body does a good job. We just don't have a good one right now.
I usually enjoy a light skewering of grammatical misstatements, but you are taking Romney's statements way too seriously. Romney engaged in puffery regarding his impact on Massachusett's economy. Not a big deal. You fail to point out any false statements in Romney's bio. Also, Romney obviously wasn't advocating "direct democracy.
You wrote that no American judge has ever written a law. I disagree. Judges write opinions (aka "case law") which are just as much a part of the law as are statutes. Even if you meant that judges merely rule on cases (but do not write substantive law), I still disagree. The one example you use (Roe v. Wade) actually disproves your point.
The statute at issue in Roe v. Wade prohibited abortions unless done so for the purpose of saving the woman's life. The Supreme Court should have ruled on the constitutionality of that particular statute and then moved on. Instead, they decided to tell the states what could (and could not) be legislated during each of the trimesters of the woman's pregnancy. Please read Section XI of the Court's opinion. Sentence #1 is a proper use of the Court's power. Sentences 1(a) through 1(c) are not. If sentence 1(a) through 1(c) are not clear examples of a judge writing a law, I don't know what is.
You don't know what is.
Sounds like a repeat of the BushWhacko formula : aka the governor from Enron/Halliburton. Let's watch this clone clown closely and stop the ongoing Messopotamia from perpetuating, and stop the continuing destruction of what's left of this country. BTW-Where's impeachment when we really need it??!!
Insane? Nah. Desparate to have the seal of the POTUS on his holy underwear? Yep.
Don't worry - he'll flip flop on these issues at least twice more before 2008.
Everybody sing!!!!! They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning. No one you see is floppier than he!!!!
"I believe the laws should be written by the people"?!
Is he insane? "The people" don't have a great track record. If "the people" made all the laws, there are places in America that would have public stonings and burning at the stake! But only of homosexuals -- or blacks -- or Mexicans -- or Jews -- because they're not "the people." It's called the tyranny of the majority and it's what our system of checks and balances was set up to prevent.
The reason our judges aren't elected is that we're more likely to get competence that way --if the process hasn't been corrupted by cronyism and partisanship. Any candidate's real goal should be to clean up the Justice Department -- get rid of incompetents and political appointees -- and restore the Rule of Law.
The same metrics could be applied to the Clinton economy. nobody benefitted more from "the right place at the right time" than he did. Y2k and the internet drove the economy from '95 on, yet he and every other Dem have no problem taking credit for it.
"The same metrics could be applied to the Clinton economy. nobody benefitted more from "the right place at the right time" than he did. Y2k and the internet drove the economy from '95 on, yet he and every other Dem have no problem taking credit for it."
Considering how many Republicans claimed that Clinton's tax increase would devastate the economy, and it kept growing, I think that's reason for the Democrats to celebrate: Clinton must have done something right.
Back in the age of Reagan, Supply Side Economists would justify their model with the "Laffer Curve," that said there's a point where additional taxes would burden the economy so much that tax revenues would go down.
George Aitch Bush and Bill Clinton both raised taxes, and the growth kept coming. Clearly, we're on the near side of the "Laffer Curve;" that taxes are not as burdensome as the Supply Siders feared. They've responded to this disproof by eliminating talk of the Laffer Curve from their discussions, which would put them in the absurd position of saying that we should eliminate taxes and so much money would drift into the Government's nets that they wouldn't know what to do with it all.
Hey TMQ, where are you?
It's even more obious than that, I think. The guy is a stiff, pure and simple. Everything about politics is phony, however, and nothing is phonier than a sincere stiff, which sounds paradoxical (t I think it has something to do with quantum mechanics). Maybe it all goes back to an update of Billy Crystal: "it's better to look good than to feel good or be good"
Yes, but do the Dallas Cowboys have a chance to win the Super Bowl this season?
It is easy to get away with such distortion because Americans are astonishingly ignorant about the basics of civic society. People who do not understand how a system works can be mislead by simple slogans. I think that benefits both parties, which is why we never see real education reform. Whichever side of the Republicrat party one prefers. it would be folly to imagine any real changes will ever be made that would threaten this system in which they "compete" for votes. IMO, people are much smarter than generally acknowledged, but they are also ignorant. I believe this is by design.
bl73,
Perhaps the problem is more basic....
About number ignorance in general. At Wal-Mart it required a cashier, a manager, a calculator and several attempts to subtract $2.84 from $20 and provide my change when a wrong amount was entered into the register.
Wal-Mart IS America. AND, Wal-Mart is the place a customer was reportedly given change from a $200 bill.
Most of America has no concept of what numbers mean, ANY numbers.
My friend,
I was enlightended to my own arrogance by your post. My first reaction was the righteously indignant "HOW COULD YOU SHOP AT WAL-MART?!?!" Then I realized, I am lucky enough to be able to afford not to. So, I apologize for my own judgment of you (even though I caught it in time). I think your illustration shows that education is lacking in many areas. I don't now tht I agree that numbers are more basic than the workings of our civil society. I'd rather use a calculator and know what the Constituion says than the other way around.
"I believe our laws ought to be written by the people, and not by unelected judges."
Sounds like that's a direct reference to the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that recognizes gay marriage.
I live in Massachusetts, and overall he was an ineffective, disinterested governor. We were only a stepping-stone for his political career.
I think I've seen the commercial that's mentioned, or something very much akin to it. True or not, and I have a hard time believing much of the Repub ads I see, it's gonna play very well where I live.
""I believe our laws ought to be written by the people, and not by unelected judges."
Sounds like that's a direct reference to the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that recognizes gay marriage."
What he's really saying is that because he successfully lied to the people of Massachusetts, his position should be taken as that of the misled.
How many really believe that the sanctity of marriage depends on denying it to those the Religious Rightwing thinks are politically incorrect?
Even if he was advocating direct democracy, he should be made to deal with the total dishonesty of his side's efforts. When a "grassroots movement" depends on money from the high and mighty, that is Astroturf. What do you call it when such a campaign is supported by the elites providing a dishonest intellectual framework?
I'm a Massachusettsian - uh, a Massachusan - um, a Massachuse
I have no desire to defend Romney, but you quibble to make your point. You know that "written by the people" is metaphor for the elected legislature and hyperbole used on one's record is nothing new for any candidate. They would take credit for sunny weather if they could. I wish he really had turned the state around - but only on Thanksgiving and Christmas so the drive would be shorter to visit my family in Pennsylvania.
The truly dubious claim you've hit on is that of lowering taxes. He decreased state taxes while lowering contributions to municipalities. They simultaneously cut back services and raised their taxes, sending the contributions of most residents over the previous level. Thanks.
He clearly recognized gay marriage as a profitable wedge issue on the national stage. The government should not be in the marriage business, anyway. Make it solely a financial arrangement on the books and seal the deal with your own gods, then parenthood gets the legal clout. If any politicians were serious about "defense of marriage," they would put adultery laws back into play. And have a good number of their colleagues prosecuted. Our legislators put it in perspective: "Of course we should allow gay marriage - why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us?" " This is really about dislike for the thought of gay sex, isn't it? My colleagues should know that after marriage sex stops, so it really wouldn't be a problem any more."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
