E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
BURBANK, Calif. – Seated on Jay Leno's couch for the first time since announcing his second presidential bid, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney faced a wide-ranging interview on Tuesday that covered everything from policy questions on Afghanistan and healthcare to jokes about Rick Santorum and pornography.
"Did you ever think we’d be talking about porn, with all the other things in this election?" Leno asked Romney early in the interview's first segment
"I didn’t know we were talking about porn," Romney said.
"We’re not; Rick Santorum is talking about porn, you and I were talking about porn backstage," Leno responded, in a quip that may have made Ann Romney, who watched her husband's appearance from backstage, blush.
The jab at Santorum wasn't the only mention of Romney's primary competition. In his opening monologue, Leno joked about wanting to have Santorum on The Tonight Show, but that Santorum, who on Sunday cursed at a New York Times reporter, "works too dirty."
Romney played off Santorum's testy Sunday exchange with the reporter and battles with the press with a joke of his own. Leno would say the names of potential candidates for vice president, and Romney would reply with one word.
When Leno said Nikki Haley, Romney replied, “energetic.” Donald Trump – “huge.” When it came to Santorum, Romney deadpanned. “Press secretary,” he said.
Romney and Leno play vice presidential word association
Earlier, Romney said Santorum deserved "a little bit of slack" for the outburst, explaining that as a candidate for president you are "on all the time," and seemed to suggest he might even consider his rival for a spot on the ticket - a position Santorum indicated he would consider in a recent interview - should Romney become the nominee.
"In this case Rick Santorum is a good guy; he’s running a good campaign. We have some differences in background and differences on some issues but basically a good guy and, you know, I’m happy with him saying he’d like to be part of an administration with me, nothing wrong with that, if he’s the VP that’s better," Romney chuckled. "I’d rather be the president. Let him be the vice president."
But the interview, which stretched across a commercial break, and for which Romney wore a full suit, was not all fun and games. After the break, Leno pressed Romney on healthcare, Afghanistan and United States relations with Russia.
On health care, Leno pushed Romney to explain what he would offer Americans with pre-existing medical conditions so that they might retain their coverage, perhaps the most popular provision of the president's healthcare law.
"People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance," Romney said, describing his vision for health care if the Affordable Care Act were to be struck down or repealed.
"Suppose they haven't been insured," Leno countered.
"If they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, ‘Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered,’" Romney responded.
But when Leno pushed back, telling Romney he had friends who had worked in the auto industry who had never had insurance before and now were able to get coverage, Romney seemed to soften his stance somewhat.
"We'll look at a circumstance where someone is ill and hasn't been insured so far, but people who have the chance to be insured – if you are working in the auto business for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure their employees, you look at the circumstances that exist – but people who have done their best to get insured are going to be able to be covered," Romney said. "But you don't want everyone saying, ‘I am going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn't make sense. But you get defined rules and get people in who are playing by the rules."
Asked about Afghanistan, Romney repeated his claim that announcing a withdrawal date for U.S. forces was a "mistake." In a follow-up question about whether the case of Robert Bales, the man allegedly killed 17 Afghans, Romney suggested that America's forces were stretched too thin. He also doubled down on his call for adding 100,000 troops to the U.S. military.
Leno also pressed Romney on his comments yesterday that Russia was the country’s greatest "geopolitical foe." He read Romney a quote from the current Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, suggesting that Romney was stuck in the past. Leno asked Romney if the Russians, who have American fast food, “love cars” and “wear fancy clothes” weren’t more like Americans than “our enemies.”
"The Russian people, certainly, are people like us, but you have Vladimir Putin and Mr. Medvedev and they're continuing to support Iran and to keep us from putting in place crippling sanctions against Iran,” Romney said. “They continue to support Assad, Bashir Assad in Syria. They continue to support people like Chavez and Castro. They basically stand up for the world's worst actors, and when America tries to put pressure on those actors with sanctions or other UN actions, Russia always stands up for what I would consider to be the world's worst leaders."
Leave a Comment:
I will pass on watching Leno.
But thanks for the excerpts.
"If they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, ‘Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered,’" Romney responded.
Romney ,of course, is for a mandate for insurance coverage.
Hope the heir apparent for the GOP talks about this in Wisconsin and when he gets to Tampa.
Ya I paid in my insurance for twenty yrs and rarely used it until I got older and didn't have enough hours to have insurance thru the IW union.Then I had a heart attack which needed a quadruple bypass that was paid for by the government. I had to retire and a yr. later my kidneys went luckily when I retired I was able to get ins. thru the union again that I pay for out of my pension monthly. If it wasn't for my union I would be screwed or dead.
Ted Why did the government pick up the tab for your bypass surgery? Why don't you pay for it and not stick the rest of us with the bill?
Worst part of your statement is your completely ok with taking from everyone else like you are entitled to have it paid because you bought insurance for 20 years. Why did your insurance not pay?
A man who lies about little things will lie about big things.
Ted, that's why we need universal healthcare.
Everyone pays in, and no one is left in the lurch.
Ron Paul was on Leno last week; bland-a$$ Romney gets to two articles about his visit. Why?
When and if Ron Paul ever becomes the front runner he will get the same attention. Coming in 4th, a distant 4th of 4 certainly doesn't make one popular on talk shows or, obviously, with anyone other than a small group of admireres.
Mitt "I'll-tell-you-whatever-you-want-to hear" Romney is at it again. This time on Jay Leno.
But THIS is the republicon candidate. No wonder Santorum, who has ZERO chance of winning the presidency, keeps hanging on. He has the same chance as Romney.
And I'm laughing at the republicons that think that Obama is a one-term president. He could've been, until you guys demanded a nominee that is so extreme and wingnut that even Reagan couldn't get a nomination, and that would make Goldwater look moderate.
No wonder Santorum, who has ZERO chance of winning the presidency, keeps hanging on.
Nope, the real reason Santorum keeps hanging on is covered in the article:
...seemed to suggest he might even consider his rival for a spot on the ticket - a position Santorum indicated he would consider in a recent interview - should Romney become the nominee.
This is Santorum's way back into a political position after being voted out out of the Senate by Pa voters back in 2006. Consulting and lobbying fees must be getting thin. He's now missing that gravy train of graft and corruption he enjoyed so much when Republicans were fully in power from 2000 to 2006.
Who,
Maybe because Romney will be the GOP nominee? Or he was funnier than Paul?
BTW, I have asked numerous time of Paul supporters,"Why does Paul allow himself to be co opted by the Republican party? Why does he not run on the libertarian ticket which is on the ballot in many states?
No one has answered my question yet.
Northstar--What did Romney mean when he described Trump to Leno when he said "Um, huge."?
Northstar,
Mr. Paul has already answered that question himself. He says he runs as part of the Republican party because that's where the money is.
Please tell me this is all a joke!
Romney is the leader, but the next few weeks will tell the story. Gingrich has cut his campaign staff by 33% - that means money is drying up, just like his support. The question is will the support go to Romney or Santorum. A couple of weeks ago, I'd say Santorum. Right now maybe 75% of the Gingrich support will go to Santorum and the rest to Romney. If enough goes to Santorum, Romney will fail to clinch by the convention. If enough go to Santorum he could pass Romney and neither will clinch.
From looking at the numbers, if Gingrich had dropped one week before Super Tuesday, Santorum probably clinches before the convention. With Gingrich out, Santorum takes Georgia, has larger margins (more delegates in Tennesee, Oklahoma, Vermont, wins Ohio, and 2 other states that Romney won. Romney would have had about 50 - 60 delegates less and Santorum 100 - 120 more.
Tip. Follow the PPP polls. They have been consistently short or over 2 points on Romney and over 2 points to short 7 points for Santorum. I am not certain why. Applying that, Wisconsin is neck and neck and Santorum is probably still ahead in North Carolina. Santorum also won a PA straw poll (I didn't know about) in PA, showing him with even greater numbers than the last poll taken.
Surprisingly Romney has over spent to get this far, and is scrambling to raise enough funds to finish Santorum off with the same kinds of hit adds. Santorum was looking for money, but his request was up only one day - I don't know what that means yet.
Give me a break, Mitt Romney has been "the nominee" since last July and has as much television-worth personality as a desk lamp.
Here is one answer to question number two:
Two parties (or one party depending on how you look at it) rule the country and I doubt many people can even name the candidate of any other party right now. They don't get into many debates. They don't get included in polls. For example, one-time republican candidate Gary Johnson wasn't invited to further debates because he was told he didn't poll well enough but he wasn't even listed as a choice IN the polls. He dropped the GOP and now he is even further off the map; not because he stopped campaigning, but because he switched parties. He had many stances similar to Paul which made for a REAL debate with the GOP tunnel vision. Now we have etch-a-sketch.
@ NorthStarDFL,
If your question hasn't been answered, then it simply means your question had not been directed properly before to a real Paul supporter. It's already well established that Ron Paul has the most enthusiastic supporters of any candidate, R or D, and that's acknowledged even by those who don't like Ron Paul.
The answer is that Ron Paul is running on the R ticket because the game is rigged to only consider R and D candidates for president. It's because he's in the R party that he has held his congressional seat for so very long and why he's been in the debates. It's why he's been interviewed by MSM sources. If he were running Independent or as Libertarian, none of that would have happened and only an extreme minority of people would know who he is. It's because he's in the R party that you even know his name.
Your question implies that good campaigning means cheering for either the R or D team. But it's not. That's the same politics that's now got YOU owing the US government about $40,000, or perhaps closer to $200,000 for your share of the US debt if all US liabilities are totaled up. While all the other R candidates, and most of the R voters simply want a president with an "(R)" next to his name without caring a whit about actually cutting the size of government, Ron Paul supporters simply want someone who will do something different from Obama once he's in office, which unfortunately won't happen with either Romney or Santorum. Ron Paul is real deal who would do the right thing and put America first by actually doing what the R platform actually claims to be all about, which is a small limited government.
And I think that's what scares people about Ron Paul more than anything else.
expat,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Yes, in this day and age it is a two party system. Other parties have organized and have some sustianing power in local and even state elections. Both the independence and green party come to mind.
Within the Democratic party there are what have been called casuses: progressives, bluedogs and other groupings. As a Democrat, it is refeshing that my party is more unified than ever before. it was not always the case. I see the GOP being in search of a new identity and the path their candidates are taking are more and more extreme especially Santorum.
There is a Franklin and Marshall Poll coming out today showing Santorum having a 2 point lead in PA. 2 weeks ago, the same group showed Santorum with a 29 point lead while everyone else showed him with a 14 point lead - and two of those are typically much more reliable, although they typically show several points below what Santorum actually has gotten in other states.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
I'm glad Governor Romney got some time on Leno to talk about some serious issues. There's a statistic out there that says a good amount of Americans get their news from late night t.v. and Comedy
Central. As that's sadly probably true, the candidates should go on these shows and have a chance to share their views.....especially with viewers who think Jon Stewart's is a real news show.
Tom,
"Huge": like in huge mouth, ego, bank account, ...
or maybe for Romney it was huge mistake to butter up to D. Trump.
Candice,
thanks for your response to my question about Paul.
He reminds me of Ralp Nader, who ran long past his time, but he was a true believer and had a following.
He did prevent Gore from winning in Florida and therefore the presidency.
Will Paul endorse Romney in the end?
I agree tht politicans should take time and go on the late night comedy shows. It show them more relaxed and real.
Hi, Northstar.
Yes, Paul certainly has a following and his following is almost cult-like. I'm not saying that in a negative way. His supporters are true and loyal and with conviction. These are qualities the other candidates supporters lack. I actually agree with a lot of what he believes. It's unfortunate he makes sense but comes off a bit radical.
I doubt seriously Paul would endorse Romney in the end. Mr. Paul is hard stuck to his theories and principals. The other candidates are too far removed from his ideas. With his personal convictions I don't know that he'd want to appear to agree even an inkling with the other's philosophies.
Of course, I could be completely wrong.
its cult like because it is full of former clans members.
it's real funny the people against the Affordable Health Care Act are the rich people who have insurance who are not affected by the mandate. The currently uninsured people will be able to get insurance instead of being treated at the ER uninsured. Hey Flip, what about the Insurance companies dropping people after those same people paid premiums for decades and then had the misfortune of being sick? That's right you like to be able to fire people at will and corporations are people too so they should be able to fire people too in your world view. Are we going to go back to the days where the insurance companies drop people who have never missed a payment just because they have a disease that is not profitable for the insurance company to pay to treat you? Our Nation should rally behind the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT AND WE SHOULD STRENGTHEN IT TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC OPTION.
Really G-9?
I know a lot of middle class people and they aren't for it.
I know many in the middle class too who are opposed to the Affordable Health care Act too. They have insurance and they complain it is expensive. The mandate hasn't kicked in yet and they don't seem to understand that is the juncture where the cost to society will be decreased due to more people being insured and less ER uninsured treatment being absorbed by the rest of us. It doesn't mean it isn't in their best interest because they are politically against something. Can you really imagine what the Insurance Companies will do if they have the power of the SCOTUS telling them Congress has no power to regulate the health care Industry? I don't think you do. I don't think any of us can fathom the depravity with which they will screw every last cent out of the people. Even though Flip and the rest of the GOP think Corporations are people my friend they ain't benevolent. With friends like that who needs enemies? If you are not profitable you will be dropped like a hot rock. Hope you don't get a costly disease under the Non Affordable health Care Act. People shouldn't smoke but they do. People should support their own best interests but I learned log ago that the GOP will cut off the Nation's nose to try to spite President Obama's face.
G9
If you think that insurance rates will come down after the mandate kicks in, You are wrong. The ins.co. will say they have to raise rates to accomadate all of those pre-existing condition people. Rates will not drop they will find a way around that.
g9,
If you have insurance thru your employer you are fine. You bring up a good point that the AHC is going to change, that is pre-existing condition and with the mandate, those who don't have insurance will have access to it regardless of your employer.
Yes, a public option would have been better, or even a single payer plan. but the political will was not there.
but keep your eye on tomorrow when the afternoon session will be about the provision about including more uninsured onto Medicaid. This is critical for children, single parents, disabled, elderly and single adults who are poor.
And we all know that Leno is non-partisan when he has guests on and would never try to steer the conversation towards any kind of prejudicial bashing, right?
It is always a heart-wrenching issue when we hear about a good person who has suffered terrible luck and his friends and family can't help. Americans are kind people and so it is natural to want the government to step in and help that person. It is an unfortunate truth, though, that as soon as Congress mandates a law that will help that one person, ten million more say that they should get handouts too. There has to be balance among how many are helped and how many are hurt. In my opinion, ACA will help a number of deserving unfortunates, but the cost for all of the rest of us will far outweigh such benefits.
And little willard finally comes to it..
That's what the mandate is about willard..
EVERYONE at some point in time, is going to need medical goods and services.. Most individuals won't have the financial resources to cover ALL the costs themselves.
Hence.. the need for some level of insurance coverage... And yes,.. willard knows this..
""Romney said. "But you don't want everyone saying, ‘I am going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn't make sense.""
Perhaps a broader issue is the boundaries on what represents legitimate function of government. Things that may be good to do are not necessarily things the the government should do.
Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!!!
I really got a kick out of Romney's explanation when Leno asked him about a tax amnesty for corporations that want to repatriate profits from overseas. First, Romney said it wasn't an amnesty. Then he gave the example of a company that manufactures and sells in China and doesn't have to pay taxes unless they bring the money back here "to reinvest." Of course, there was no guarantee of reinvestment during the last tax amnesty, and a paltry number of jobs resulted from the tax vacation for corporations. Romney said we were keeping corporations from investing in America. Hello? I'm sure this same Romney loves it that corporations have the status of "personhood." Unfortunately for real persons, if they earn money overseas, they WILL be taxed if they try to bring the money back home--to SPEND it here [provided that they have not already been taxed in the other country and that we have a mutual tax treaty with said country]. Someone please inform Mr. Romney that "personhood" should include the responsibilities of same. He is a smooth talker, as are all politicians, but he seems to have only a rudimentary grasp of the concepts he describes.
So, in other words, it's OK for corporations with pre-existing conditions to ask for government handouts.....but not people.....it's funny, I don't remember seeing "We, the overpaid, and therefore wealthy" written anywhere in the Constitution...
Romney cracks jokes....pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?......hehehehe.....
I think Mittens is talking out both sides of his mouth on healthcare bill. Either the individual mandate stands or it doesn't but saying that some pre-existing conditions will be accepted while others might not, depending on some vague set of individual circumstances invites an even worse bill than we have now.
Medvedev, in response to the "Russia is our #1 enemy, basically told Romney to go play with the other children.
Forces are spread too thin but let's add another 100,000 to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely? Is he serious or is he just not thinking things through?
Romney's reckless remarks about Russia contradict the efforts and successes from the Reagan presidency onward. He has no idea how diplomacy works, the complexities of foreign policy, the sovereignty of nations, American diplomatic history, and the difference between competing strategic goals and military enemies. Fortunately, the Russian president gave him some political advice and correctly laughed off his remarks as bizarre.
Now Romney is free to criticize Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union
You got that right.
I once saw a documentary about what would constitute an antichrist. In the documentary, it said that the antichrist would do anything, say anything to become a leader and then he would alienate the entire world and in doing so, cause havoc and war and destruction for his own political and financial agenda. If I believed in an antichrist, I think Romney would fit the bill. God help the U.S. if he ever becomes president. (This documentary was made before Romney began his compaign)
of
He will not alienate the world but apise to it. Sound like anyone you know
Let me first say that I am not fond of either Romney or Santorum, but did you notice what Romney said about Santorum as a potential running mate.
"We have differences in background......." This is very telling. In other words, he does not care to have a running mate that did not come from a privileged background like him. Santorum is a millionaire, but he did not start as one. He came from a working class of people. Romney is going to pick a running mate from the country club set, not the serf set.
Another indication that he is a snob. He looks down at the rest of us. Both Obama and Biden came from the working class before they became millionaires. They know what it was like to be an ordinary joe. Romney does not want "ordinary joe" to contaminate his oval office.
Romney picking Santorum as his running mate would be like McCain picking Palin. You have one reasonably sensible just right of center and one extreme right wing radical. The end result would be the same.
There is only one thing wrong with Health Insurance in this country: The Insurers are GREEDY! Further, doctors spend an exorbitant amount of money getting their qualifications. As always, the cost is passed on to those who pay the premiums. The consequence is less health services are being offered for more money. Now, the Democrats and Republicans in Washington are in the Health Insurance Lobby pockets.
I assert that Romney is the only one capable of dealing with the issues successfully. Obama does not have this skill and Santorum is very unstable mentally - a scary thought.
Romney can't even figure out where he stands on most issues.
Mark Thomas-371822: Go ahead and stick your head in the sand; that is equivalent to the propaganda you are being fed. You are just as uninformed as the right wing nuts!
Romney said "I didn't know we were talking about porn". Leno says "You and I were talking about porn back stage". Take a guess which one was telling a lie. I'll bet you $10,000 it was wooden Mitt.
The failed leadership of Willard Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts is stunning. His state ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation, 4 straight years of manufacturing sector job losses, what few jobs that were created, public sector outpaced private sector 6 to 1 and the state's debt increased 16.5%. With a failed leadership record like that, it is no wonder that Willard won't talk about his record as governor.
When you make comments like this think of the disservice you are doing: Massachusetts had and continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US.
Romney made it worse. Facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient they are.
Illogical: How can you fix something that is not broken? Did he leave Massachusetts with a Budget Deficit? Romney made it possible for Car Insurance to be competitive in the state: Now we have Geico which we never had before. But obviously this is not at all important to you.
He left the state with an increase in debt of 16.5%. He was a failure, the people new it, and so did he. Romney did not bother to run for re-election. His approval rating was in the low 30's.
When Obamma leaves I want you to tell how much he increased the debt. I know you can't count that high Thermen but it will be more than 16.5%.
I would love to see you admit that loss against your puppet.
Republican House budget chair Paul Ryan has introduced a budget for the next fiscal year that features an $800 billion deficit.
Thermen Merman: Mitt Romney balanced the budget every year he was Governor. He left the State in better fiscal state than when he entered. He worked with the majority Democratic State Senate. Barack Obama can't even work with those in his own Party.
47th in job creation is very pitiful. Not to mention all of his failures outlined in post # 23.
Willard had no choice in as to the budget;
Massachusetts is required to pass a “balanced budget”.
Article 63, Section 2 of the 1780 Constitution addresses the
need for the governor to set forth all expenditures and all
revenues and other means “by which such expenditures shall
be defrayed.” More importantly, Chapter 29, Section 6E of the
State law requires the governor to submit, and the general
assembly to pass, a general appropriations bill which
constitutes a balanced budget. If a deficiency in revenue
exists, Chapter 29, Section 9C requires the governor to reduce
spending or propose ways to generate additional revenue.
Massachusetts law does not forbid the carrying over of a
deficit from one year to the next.
There you go with your illogical argument. The truth of the matter is that during Romney's time, the Commonwealth experienced a population growth and Romney actually created 2 jobs for each new resident.
Is that all you got? You don't count newborns as population growth?
47th out of 50 in job creation. The 46 governors ahead of him must have created 5 jobs for every new resident.
4 straight years of manufacturing job loss.
Public sector jobs (government jobs) out paced private sector 6 to 1.
16.5% increase in debt.
Between 2002 and 2006 (when Willard was governor), the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents.
Once again illogical: Do newborns work?
You are counting them as population growth in your meaningless job statistic. Why did Willard rank near the bottom in job creation? Why didn't he run for re-election? Could his low 30's job approval rating have something to do with it? Why did he lose by a landslide when he later ran for Senate in the same state?
Thorough-moron: I live in Massachusetts, it is a Liberal State. Is it a wonder that Romney lost against Edward Kennedy? The fact is, he became the Governor of the State and worked with the Majority Democratic Senate to get many successes.
Willard Romney was and is a miserable failure. face it. The facts prove it. You are not living in reality.
Willard's 30% job approval rating says it all. The people of Massachusetts experimented with Romney and quickly realized their mistake.
Willard M. Romney is by far, the least qualified person to run for POTUS in a generation.
Few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state's lackluster economic performance during the Romney years.
Romney=Failure.
fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1.
Willard Mitt Romney
2.
an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
3.
nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
4.
a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency: the failure of crops.
5.
deterioration or decay, especially of vigor, strength, etc.: The failure of her health made retirement necessary.
6.
a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.
Romney is eminently more qualified than Obama! You should face it: Obama is a failure.
AS MITT ROMNEY pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state's economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.
On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.
While the number of employed people over age 16 in the United States rose by nearly 8 million, or close to 6 percent, between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. The aggregate number of people 16 and older either working or looking for work in Massachusetts fell over the Romney years.
We were one of only two states to have experienced no growth in its resident labor force. Again, without the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on the dispersal of the Louisiana population, Massachusetts would have ranked last on this measure. The decline in the state's labor force, which was influenced in large part by high levels of out-migration of working-age adults, helped hold down the official unemployment rate of the state. Between July 2002 and July 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came here to live. This high level of net domestic out-migration was equivalent to 3.5 percent of the state's population, the third highest rate of population loss in the country. Excluding the population displacement effects of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana, Massachusetts would have ranked second highest on this measure. We were a national leader in exporting our population.
From 2002 to 2006, the level of real output of goods and services did increase each year, rising by 9 percent over this four-year period. This modest rate of growth, however, fell well below the 13 percent rate of real output growth for the nation, and the state ranked 14th lowest on this measure. Labor productivity growth underlies all of the increase in the state's output, but little of this productivity improvement accrued to the typical worker or family in the Commonwealth in the form of higher wages or earnings. Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value. Median household income fell even more sharply in the nation. Family incomes in both the United States and Massachusetts have become more unevenly distributed since 2000.
There is one additional area in which Massachusetts was a national leader over the past five years, the rise in housing prices. Between 2000 and 2005, the median self-reported home price in Massachusetts increased by nearly 95 percent versus an increase of only 40 percent for the United States. The median home price ranked fourth highest among the 50 states, and the median value of homes relative to household income was the third highest in the country. The high affordability cost ratio encouraged the high levels of outmigration from the state of young families with children.
Real world experience has shown that a governor is limited in his power to influence the course of economic development in a state. A full-time governor who is deeply committed to the economic well-being of a state's workers can, however, make some difference. The state unfortunately did not receive such leadership over most of the past four years. Jokes about Massachusetts may receive some half-hearted laughter on the national campaign trail, but few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state's lackluster economic performance during the Romney years.
Andrew Sum is director and Joseph McLaughlin is research associate at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University.
I have enjoyed reading all of these posts,got to run.I'm building an elevator in my garage,so that I can drive from my bedroom to my kitchen and back.
tiredofit- Thanks for the laugh! I think Mitt is making room for the free Cadillac's he will receive, for saying his wife has two.