"All 50 states had the same national economy. And on virtually any measurement you wish to look at, Michigan has moved up and improved against the others"
About this Quote
John Engler frames state performance as a relative contest. If every state faces the same national winds, then those that surge ahead must be steered better. That is the claim embedded here: Michigan did not simply ride a strong U.S. economy; it outpaced peers on the measurements that matter. The phrasing puts weight on comparisons rather than absolute gains, a way to head off the objection that the 1990s lifted all boats.
The logic leans on a basic distinction economists make between cyclical tailwinds and policy-driven advantages. A common national cycle means unemployment fell and incomes rose almost everywhere. What marks a state’s leadership, Engler suggests, is whether it improves its rank against others. He points to broad-based metrics — jobs, income growth, investment, credit ratings, educational outcomes — by saying virtually any measurement. The hyperbole serves a political purpose: to portray progress as comprehensive, not isolated.
The context is Michigan’s rebound after painful deindustrialization in the 1970s and 1980s. As governor through the 1990s expansion, Engler pushed fiscal restraint, tax changes, welfare-to-work initiatives, workers’ compensation and tort reforms, and the school finance shift under Proposal A. Unemployment fell sharply during his tenure, and the state’s business climate reputation improved. To his audience, especially skeptical voters who remembered plant closures, the message is reassurance and credit-taking.
There is a subtle sleight, though. While states share a national economy, they do not share the same industrial mix, demographics, or exposure to global trade. Michigan’s fortunes remain tied to autos and manufacturing cycles. Some of its relative climb likely came from a strong late-1990s market for cars and capital goods. Even so, the comparative frame is a fair test for state leadership: over a common cycle, did policies help a state move up the ladder? Engler’s argument says yes, and it invites judgment by the scoreboard of rankings rather than by feel-good headlines.
The logic leans on a basic distinction economists make between cyclical tailwinds and policy-driven advantages. A common national cycle means unemployment fell and incomes rose almost everywhere. What marks a state’s leadership, Engler suggests, is whether it improves its rank against others. He points to broad-based metrics — jobs, income growth, investment, credit ratings, educational outcomes — by saying virtually any measurement. The hyperbole serves a political purpose: to portray progress as comprehensive, not isolated.
The context is Michigan’s rebound after painful deindustrialization in the 1970s and 1980s. As governor through the 1990s expansion, Engler pushed fiscal restraint, tax changes, welfare-to-work initiatives, workers’ compensation and tort reforms, and the school finance shift under Proposal A. Unemployment fell sharply during his tenure, and the state’s business climate reputation improved. To his audience, especially skeptical voters who remembered plant closures, the message is reassurance and credit-taking.
There is a subtle sleight, though. While states share a national economy, they do not share the same industrial mix, demographics, or exposure to global trade. Michigan’s fortunes remain tied to autos and manufacturing cycles. Some of its relative climb likely came from a strong late-1990s market for cars and capital goods. Even so, the comparative frame is a fair test for state leadership: over a common cycle, did policies help a state move up the ladder? Engler’s argument says yes, and it invites judgment by the scoreboard of rankings rather than by feel-good headlines.
Quote Details
| Topic | Vision & Strategy |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
