Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter
Everyone's talking about how to create jobs, so a logical question arises: among the governors who are running in 2012, who saw the greatest job growth during their tenure?
Katrina Trinko at NRO has crunched the numbers. She writes:
Among the crowd who governed primarily during the 2000s, Huntsman has the best record. During his 2005 to 2009 tenure as governor of Utah, the number of jobs grew by 5.9 percent.
Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have much weaker records. Romney, who governed Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, had an overall job-growth rate of 1.6 percent. During Pawlenty’s time as governor of Minnesota (2003 to 2011), the number of jobs grew by an anemic 0.5 percent.
Rick Perry, who is flirting with a presidential run but has not yet announced his candidacy, had an overall job-growth rate of 12.5 percent from January 2001 (he was inaugurated as governor of Texas in late December 2000) to April of this year, the most recent month finalized numbers were available for.
As Trinko points out, some of these comparisons are apples to oranges. Governing a more conservative state, with easier labor laws and other advantages, gives one governor a lead over others. Plus, we all know that governors aren't the only (or main) factor in how an economy performs.
Still, as Huntsman launches his campaign on Tuesday, he'd do well to brag on this point.
Of the Governors mentioned here Rick Perry (not Jon Huntsman) has the best record - unless we are following some sort of new math where 5.9 is a bigger number than 12.5
However, the writer is correct - the comparison is essentially meaningless. The various people governed at different times and in very different States - for example Minnesota has always been a high tax and pro union State - with a Democrat controlled State Legislature (and a RINO pro Obama faction among a few of the State's "Republicans") it is astonishing that Tim Pawlenty managed to prevent the place imploding (the CATO Institute gave him an A for his record at restraining the crazy people in government in Minnesota).
Sadly the Federal government is a lot more like Minnesota (only vastly worse) than it is relatively sane places like Texas. Someone who comes to Washington D.C. thinking "we can all get along" (rather than being experienced in trench warfare - against Dems who revere Castro and Mao rather than Washington and Adams) and thinking the basic situation is O.K. and just needs a few small changes (rather than the basic situation being on the verge of collapse) will sink without trace - as George Walker Bush did. However, Rick Perry is a very different sort of man to Bush (different background and different way of thinking). One can not "make deals" or "get along with" people like Congressman Barney Frank - and far leftist like him make up the majority (the vast majority) of Dems in Washington D.C.
Also where is Gary Johnson? If we are going to consider people who governed at different times, his record as Governor of New Mexico deserves a look. True CNN have decided he is a nonperson (not even inviting him to their debate), but it seems odd for Republicans to allow CNN to set the agenda.
My guess is that Pawlenty will come back strong (inspite of articles like this) unless Rick Perry comes into the race. Of course the lady born in Iowa may upset everyone's calculations.
Posted by: Paul Marks | June 21, 2011 at 04:12 AM
The jobs record at the state level is of massive importance.To have governed a state that has produced 38% of new jobs in the USA since April 2009 is one heck of an achievement.
As California has lost jobs with an unstable & excess situation as regards litigation,regulation and taxation.
The choice in 2012 is stark Obama is turning the US into California and Governor Rick Perry could turn the USA into another Texas.
If taxation on estates,capital gains,dividends and corporate profits was cut to zero within three years & a 15% income tax flat rate brought in job growth would take off.If Tort reform meant no more loony compensation culture and if federal spending & the number of regulations slashed every year for six years then business investment would take off.
US business has $2 trillion to invest. So if the Obama-Care was ended that would reduce uncertainty.Also if private sector bosses saw uncertainty replaced with certainty of pro-growth policies being brought in the economy would take off powered by surging investment.
Quite simply if people in business know that the tax rate on returns from productive investment are heading downwards then they will invest.The US quite simply needs new jobs owing to the toxic situation with regards a 9.1% unemployment rate.America needs a smaller federal government & more revenue to wipe out the excess budget deficit.If direct taxes are reduced avoidance will fall & productivity will rise.
With a $14.3 trillion national debt and a Greek style fiscal car crash threatening action is needed.They must go through the federal budget line by line to secure cuts of $500 billion a year until both the deficit is wiped out and the US is starting to pay down the public debt.
Under the Reagan tax cuts federal revenues rose by 50%.A revenue rise like that could along with massive cuts make short work of the budget deficit.
You can be pro-growth & anti-deficit- they are two heads of the same coin.A big deficit that sparks investor panic and soaring interest rates along with weak confidence could cause a depression.48% of US voters fear a Depression in the next six months according to a recent poll.
I hope that Governor Perry enters the fight and makes it on the economy.Fighting on jobs & the deficit produced a net gain of 65 seats in the House & 6 in the Senate last November.They can win on the economy as voters are anti Obama on economic policy.
America is a conservative nation and will vote for a 'right-wing' economic policy if they have a candidate with a great record on economic policy running an enormous state like Texas.
Posted by: Matthew Reynolds | June 21, 2011 at 09:39 AM