I had an idea yesterday as my car was being fixed. Maybe we need a way of rating governors. We could have 8 or 10 objective things that would provide a picture of how good or bad a governor is. I think right up there at the top might be how well he did at balancing the state budget. Then of course, we would want a rating on crime, an index based on all the felonies under his watch. Well this would need to be weighted. I mean, he obviously cannot take be held responsibile for the crimes for his fist month in office.

Then, there is the new one. It is what I call the immigration factor. That is to say, how many folks moved in or out of the state into another one. For example, those moving from New York to Texas. Each such person making the move would be a negative for New York and a positive for Texas. Those moving from California would have to be counted double. I mean, who in their right mind would ever want to leave beaches in Southern California for, well almost any state. It is true Florida has beaches but no mountains. Even more, everyone knows it will be completely under water in ten years. Someone said so , about 25 years ago. Hence, Florida population growth should be counted triple. There is the weather aspect too. The OK state gets a bunch of tornadoes so they should get some kind of offset. The gulf coast, gets floods. Not so many want to go down that way. Otherwise Mississippi and Alabama would have a lot more folks; maybe double.

Just a thought that you might want to maul it around in your mind. There is of course, one more thing, a question. Just why would we need such a thing? Why can’t people to see how bad the governors of
California and New York are. Why should it take a rating system to make it obvious. Yet, guess what. They keep voting for them.

However, it does give a new logic to the fight or flight phrase. Those folks that are in states like California or New York. Do they stay and fight to improve things or do they take flight, realizing the hopelessness of the situation.