A couple of weeks ago, Romney and his surrogates got in trouble for stating that they would cut federal support for first responders and teachers, a position, which after a tremendous backlash, they backed away from (“GOV. ROMNEY! PUT DOWN THE BATSHITLOONITARIANISM AND COME OUT SLOWLY!”). Here’s the key thing: based on his previous experience as governor, there’s every reason to think he would do exactly what his campaign originally claimed.
Some context is appropriate. States, unlike the federal government, are currency users, not currency issuers, and thus have to balance budgets (or pay much higher interest rates). So, in 2009, with property values, incomes, and sales all circling around the bowl, there wasn’t too much current MA governor Deval Patrick could do (well, he could have instituted a more progressive income tax, but that’s a separate discussion). But, in 2003, when housing prices were skyrocketing and the economy was doing well, Romney slashed spending anyway:
The last time the state endured local aid cuts in the middle of a fiscal year was in 2003, when Romney cut $114 million. He followed that up with more cuts in the next budget. Together, the reductions in local aid resulted in about 14,500 teachers, police officers, librarians, and others losing their jobs.
But Romney had important things to do like burnishing his conservative credentials through tax cuts.
So what do you think he’ll do if elected president? Just saying.