I'm just confused. I thought that Massachusetts had Mitt Romney for four years as Governor from 2003-2007. I would naturally assume that he would have built a strong economic foundation for Massachusetts to ride through any depression that was caused by um...FDR and Carter this year.
And with the largest of the New England states [some are just so petite and cute] one would think that his fine leadership would have carried the region through hard times. After all, that Executive Experience* should have made it a "No-Brainer"**.
That little puff-piece missed the whole problem. These states have the highest tax rates, which depresses economic activity, and folks are voting with their feet, populating states to the south. And these emigrants are turning the "cheap" states blue with their political leanings and will re-create the same problems they just left. As of this election, no NE state has a Republican, let alone a conservative, representative to the House.
The same thing has happened in California. The out-migration to neighboring states can be directly corelated to their lower income tax rates. California has a steeply progressive income tax with a 10.3 percent rate applied to high-income residents, the third-highest in the nation. The richest 10 percent of earners pay nearly 75 percent of the income tax burden in California.
Also, noteworthy is that the 80% of the revenue loss between 2001 and 2003 was a result of disappearing millionaires, whose number dropped from 44,000 in 2000 to 29,000 in 2002, representing a loss of nearly $6 billion in annual tax revenue collections.
AS for Massachusetts, voters there just dumped an opportunity to get rid of the income tax, but they legalized marijuana, but outlawed dog racing. Beginning to look like California.