Back in 2006, my colleagues in the Legislature passed a boondoggle of a bill that contained tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare and established a number of new state business and trade-oriented offices and bureaucracies. The stated purpose of the bill was to “stimulate” our economy and help make Massachusetts more competitive.

One of my colleagues went as far as to claim that the bill would create “100,000 – 150,000” new jobs over the coming decade.

Well, it didn’t happen. Even before the recession hit, Massachusetts had failed to recover the jobs lost in the previous recession, due to the growing number of companies that either fled the state to escape the restrictive costs of doing business in Massachusetts, or closed their doors altogether. And the state’s unemployment rate today stands almost double what it was the day this “economic stimulus” bill passed.

Of course, the state’s 9.3 percent unemployment rate has more to do with the deep recession this nation is struggling to emerge from, than with anything the Massachusetts State Senate did. But that just goes to prove that job creation and business development, ultimately, is influenced more by market factors on the national level than some complex string of government bureaucracies or corporate welfare programs for the industry du jour at the state level.  

The recent Economic Reorganization Bill passed by the Senate seemed to recognize that the best thing government can do, in many aspects, is just get out of the way. The bill attempted something almost unprecedented in recent Massachusetts history: the elimination and consolidation of state bureaucracies. It would cut the number of business, trade and economic development offices, agencies, bureaus, and authorities almost in half, and make them more directly accountable to the governor.

The Senate also adopted an amendment I co-sponsored that attempts to rein-in runaway salaries at state authorities.  Under our proposal, administrators and managers could not earn more than the governor’s salary of $153,000 without direct approval from the governor’s appointed secretary of administration and finance. Currently, more than 100 authority employees earn more than the governor.

However, I voted against the bill for several reasons, not the least of which is that it does nothing to reduce the high costs of doing business or the bureaucratic red tape that makes Massachusetts one of the least inviting climates for business growth.

The bill also continues the practice of allowing state agencies and authorities to conceal the names of businesses that receive state subsidies and the amounts they receive.

In addition, the bill also – whether intentionally or inadvertently –throws a life preserver to 40B developers should voters choose in November to repeal the law. The legislation contains a measure that extends all state and local permits and approvals granted between 2008 and 2011 for an additional three years. Under this language, if 40B is repealed, 40B developers could argue that their projects would be grandfathered in until 2014. I am currently working with my colleagues in the House on an amendment to carve 40B projects out from this inside deal.

It is critical that we, as legislators, focus on creating jobs. But it is also important that we realize that our only role is to create a competitive and healthy atmosphere in which businesses can grow and thrive, and we do this by keeping taxes low, maintaining an educated and skilled workforce, and removing costly bureaucracy.