Gov. Romney: First the bad news…
When the average Joe does a Google search, Massachusetts’s crime statistics are not your strong suit. Be careful how to draw attention to flawed data from your critics. What’s the good news? Responsible action as governor actually point to your critic’s flaw.
On Monday, Rudy Giuliani openly changed from his Big States strategy to competing in the smaller first states. From this Washington Post article, while in New Hampshire Giuliani states:
It is not inconceivable that you could, if you won Florida [after losing in the early states], turn the whole thing around,” Giuliani said. “I’d rather not do it that way. That would create ulcers for my entire staff and for me. . . . We want to win as many of the early ones as possible. That’s why we’re here and not in Florida right now.”
It appears like the ulcers are already happening with the Giuliani staff as this is definitely a change in strategy. Rudy then talked up his effectiveness over Romney, “He wasn’t particularly good at reducing crime. I was the most effective in the country at reducing crime. Murder went up when he was governor. Robbery went up. Violent crimes went up.” The back and forth ensued:
Romney accused Giuliani of mangling his facts. “He’s got a real problem checking facts,” Romney said during a Sunday afternoon interview, arguing that violent crime in Massachusetts declined 7 percent while he was governor. Giuliani aides immediately challenged that assertion.
I even read somewhere that when Giuliani heard of Romney’s response, he pulled out a sheet a paper in a huff claiming that he was right. That was the invitation to me to start Googling to see who was right. I went to the online Disaster Center which posts the statistics for Massachusetts and New York City. I did some quick compiling of the data and ran percentage formulas on the differences between years between the real number of crimes and the normalized crime per 100,000 inhabitants. Although New York City had better trends during 2003 – 2005 than Massachusetts, Giuliani was wrong. Either his aides can’t do spreadsheets or they lied about Romney’s record.
During Romney’s administration, murder and robbery did go up. I highlighted poor trends in red. 2003 was a statistical low outlier for murders, yet the trend was up afterwards. Even so Romney’s response was true, violent crimes did not go up from the end of 2002 to the end of 2006 (31,137 vs. 28,775, a 7.6% reduction in violent crime). Giuliani and his aides can challenge Romney’s statement all day long, Giuliani was wrong when he said that violent crimes went up in Massachusetts. This may be quibbling over numbers, but Giuliani is not used to “he who wallows in data”. Romney should not be underestimated when data is involved. And for Giuliani, data cuts both ways. During the least difference between murders per capita in 2005, you had a 57% greater chance of being murdered in New York City than in the state of Massachusetts (2.8 vs. 6.6 per 100K). It’s easy to see how campaigns can make data work towards their own means. This helped me realize the good news for Mitt Romney, its all apples and oranges.
Who has the Responsibility?
Which executive office has the greater responsibility for crimes committed, mayor or governor? Mayors are more directly responsible for the actions of the police force than Governors. Rudy would take offense if Gov. Pataki or Spitzer claimed responsibility for the success in crime reduction in New York City. Yet, 42% of the population of New York State is located in New York City. Gov. Pataki’s crime numbers are hugely influenced by the successes or failures of the mayors in his state. It is the same with Mitt Romney. The mayors in Massachusetts are widely Democrats with less than stellar records for cracking down on crime.
So what affect can Governors have on crime? Governors are responsible for the National Guard and State Police force when it comes to enforcement. Since marshal law is not a desired tool to use against crime, governors can affect the state police (namely highway patrol) and enact laws that are tough on crime. They can put pressure on mayors to enforce the laws on the books, but mayors don’t have to listen to governors.
What did Gov. Romney do about crime while in office? You can go here for the details. He past tougher laws on gang violence and activities, drunk driving, “Melanie’s Bill”, child protection, doubling the state crime lab’s space and equipment, and he tried to get the death penalty reinstated.
One interesting note is that he worked hard to try and get the state police federally certified to enforce border laws for illegal immigrants. Although there are red marks for Massachusetts’s success in reducing crime, the Democrat mayors hold more responsibility than the governor, just as Giuliani can claim success in New York City which affects over 42% of NY State’s stats. Ironically, I still have less chance of being murdered in Massachusetts than in New York City. Mitt Romney enacted tough crime laws and introduced a state wide effort to enforce immigration laws where others preferred a haven for illegal immigrants.
Nathan W.
** The stats I compiled list both the actual numbers of crimes and the normalized numbers of crimes per 100K inhabitants. The next section is of the differences year to year. And the third section is of the percentage change of those differences from year to year. New York City did not have 2006 figures.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
OUTSTANDING WORK NATHAN!
For those who only read his front post, be sure to click through the “Continue Reading” link for the entire post. Great research Nathan. Thanks for the information!