Maine's fiscal outlook makes some wonder why anyone is running, but we need a new direction.

Two weeks ago John Richardson became the 21st person to announce his or her candidacy for the 2010 gubernatorial race, and if Bill Nemitz's column shortly thereafter is to be believed, another two or three are soon to follow.

At this rate one will need the Civic Center or at least the Expo just to get the candidates themselves together.

The job itself has its challenges. The next governor will surely inherit a mess.

State revenues continue to come in under budget estimates, making the current biennial budget untenable.

This budget was the first in 35 years to be lower than its predecessor, and the latest estimates suggest revenues for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 could require another reduction of $300 million to $400 million.

Muskie School economist Charlie Colgan suggests that it may be 2014 before the state regains employment levels of 2008. The feds are about to pass health care legislation that will greatly expand Medicaid coverage as part of a comprehensive health care reform plan. All states likely will have to pick up a share of the cost of this expansion – another budget buster.

Yet there is clearly no shortage of aspirants – many of them experienced enough to have some sense of the challenges ahead.

I suspect that part of the reason for such a flood of candidates is the impact of term limits in the Legislature. It is harder for termed-out legislators to find an appropriate political post.

Another part of the reason is that public financing is available in Maine for those running for statewide office.

I am a big fan of Maine's Clean Election law that provides this financing. It works particularly well in races for the state Legislature, where it encourages more candidates and removes some of the corrosive impact of PAC funding.

However, the law may need some tweaking if it is also to be a good alternative for the gubernatorial contest. The state will have difficulty funding so many candidates in a way that would permit them to be competitive. At the same time, the law encourages marginal candidates to sign up.

But what is the substance of these candidates? Why would any of us be drawn to support them? It is still the "early days" on the campaign trail, and clearly no one is intimidating enough politically to discourage more from signing on.

What we do know is that the key issue in the campaign will be the economy and how to position Maine for job growth.

The state desperately needs a real growth plan. With more jobs, many things are possible, without them the state will continue a slow downward spiral as chronic budget deficits and an aging workforce make needed investment for the future unlikely.

Economic positioning is a product of years of incremental effort. Its impact is slow and gradual. If a state has a consistent, sustained economic development approach, it can pay real dividends over time.

Look to the example of North Dakota, "the little state that could."

Fifteen years ago, North Dakota was trailing Maine in per capita income. Then North Dakota started a slow but steady gain. North Dakota is now 20th in per capita income, Maine is 37th.

Recently North Dakota has benefited from oil development in the western part of the state, but the state's trajectory was set by a solid, long-term economic development approach.

Back in 2006, the Brookings Institution developed an excellent economic development plan for Maine.

The plan called for building on Maine's strengths as a choice place to live and raise a family by encouraging entrepreneurial investment in a select set of growth industry groupings, expanding Maine's appeal as a destination, lowering Maine's onerous tax burden and improving the state's regulatory climate.

The plan was essentially shelved, as "not invented here," by the legislative leadership – leadership that included at least two of the current gubernatorial candidates, Libby Mitchell and Richardson.

Much of the Brookings Plan remains relevant. A Joint Select Committee for Maine's Future Prosperity revisited and improved upon it in 2007. That report was also shelved.

This record does not predispose me to think that former legislative leaders are necessarily the best choice to lead the state when the economy is our No. 1 concern.

Any candidate who comes forward with a convincing plan to move the state forward will do much to separate him or herself from the pack.

Whatever happens, you can be sure that with 20-odd candidates, there will be no shortage of rhetoric to ponder.