Left Center Left

I’ve been on vacation the last week, so regrettable let the blog drop, as well as any connection to current events. Not only did I miss a governor’s debate and the end of Fluffgate but I turn my back one second only to find out that Starr Jones has left The View. Also, I just dumped about 800 spam comments for the site in one fell swoop, so if yours was a legitimate one that got caught, apologies.

I still intend to get around to some of the policy gloss of Mass Inc’s handbook that I’d promised. But let me pose a paradox: one hand this election cycle seems more concerned with a range of serious substantive policy consideration, in no part thanks to the blogosphere and policy-oriented candidates; on the other hand, the policy concerns driving the debates and news coverage strike me as a little misplaced.

The population loss ”crisis”: Jon Keller cites a study that shows a ”continued exodus of residents out of Massachusetts (and several other New England states), leaving us with a dramatically-higher percentage of less educationally-accomplished minorities in the workforce.” Keller is not alone in thinking that this is a crisis for the future of the state economy. (”Kiss our future goodbye,” he writes.)

However, I’m less worrried. Professionals have moved (in net numbers) because there’s been a significant downturn in Boston’s white collar industries, particularly finance and high-tech, and the subsidiary services they use. This was after growth in the 1990s attracted workers to the state, many of whom were not from Massachusetts or educated here. Poorer people meanwhile, have less mobility (it takes money to move) and tend to work in service areas that haven’t been so nearly hard hit economically.  

Labor mobility means that the Commonwealth is not an autonomous economic unit in the way that the nation state is. I feel fairly confident in saying that our state economy is not heading off a cliff. It’s experienced a temporary, cyclical set back.

The immigration issue: Sure, it’s hot button and on everyone’s mind. And governors may have to make a decision here or there on how to treat illegal workers. But ultimately, do we really think that the stance of the Massachusetts governor is going to have a significant effect on the number of immigrants in the state? That is, whatever our abstract arguments (and you know mine), there’s a good case for putting practical considerations first. This really is a matter of federal policy, and treating the governor’s race as an occasion to play out a national debate seems to me a waste of priorities. And I’m actually surprised that the Democratic candidates have gotten swept up in it as much as they have.

Micromanaged job creation: I know, I know, easy enough for me to say when I have a job. I just doubt how effective governors can be in creating jobs by coaxing corporations or starting job training/empowerment programs. Focus on economic development instead, fostering a climate in which . I actually think Deval Patrick has the right approach here (though not sure about the direct trade agreement business) and would like to see him tout it more.

Drug re-importation. Pet peeve of mine, if only because it seems like such an obviously short-term solution to me. If the point is to make sure Canada pays more for its drugs, fine; if it’s out of serious attempt to provide seniors with affordable medicine, the issue’s not being thought through.

On top of these one could add several issues that do matter but have grown in stature as cultural-politics hot button issues. Cape Wind for instance. I guess that’s the nature of the beast.

Beyond carping, what do I think are the important issues? I guess I’d break them down into two categories. First, there are the issues of resource allocation - what taxation level should we have? what taxes? how much emphasis do poorer cities get for services and econ. development vs. Boston, the suburbs, the exurbs? Second, there are the issues in which substantive disagreement falls on what approach to take to policy. Education, health care and economic regulation (insurance, say), in particular, are key areas around which candidates and parties can offer contrasting stakes.