Gov. Ed Rendell announced recently that employment in Pennsylvania hit an all-time high. No doubt laying the groundwork for re-election, Rendell paints a rosy economic picture that many Pennsylvanians are not seeing. The governor’s job-creation report, like those of any incumbent looking to burnish his record, should not be taken at face value. Further analysis is necessary for a truer picture of the state’s economic climate.

Rendell’s report said Pennsylvania’s job count stood at 5,720,900 on Sept. 30, and unemployment had dropped to 4.8 percent. The previous job-count record was set in 2001.

Rendell boasted that the job figures were “great news” and that his economic policies had put the state on a strong economic growth path.

But further examination of the numbers is necessary.

Job numbers cannot be viewed in isolation. The employment numbers in Pennsylvania need to be put in context — they should be compared to job-creation numbers in nearby states such as Ohio, New York and New Jersey. It also would be instructional to see what job-growth figures look like in states outside the region, like Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado or Wisconsin.

Even if Pennsylvania employment is at an all-time high, if the job creation here lags most other states’, is it really such great news?

The types of jobs being created is another topic for closer scrutiny. What percentage of the jobs being created are in manufacturing? What percentage of the new jobs come with health care and other benefits?

Rendell has traveled the state, handing out checks amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars for economic development and revitalization. So, it is reasonable to ask at what price jobs are being created or preserved.

According to the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think-tank based in Harrisburg, this state’s job-growth figures would be higher if Rendell and the legislature had not imposed a 10 percent increase in the personal net income tax (PIT). The foundation questions the impact of Rendell’s increasing taxes by $1 billion and asks what impact that has had on the state’s economy.

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy notes that while Pennsylvania has “poured enormous amounts of money into ‘economic development’ through grants, low-cost loans and tax-abatement schemes, Pennsylvania’s economy just cannot get any traction compared to dozens of better-performing states.” This notion deserves further discussion.

So while Rendell’s announcement makes for upbeat headlines and helps put a positive spin on his job- performance picture, there needs to be further examination of the job-creation numbers in terms of their accuracy and costs — and a comparison with other states.

Rendell should not be faulted for talking optimistically about the state’s economy; it’s part of his job to be bullish on Pennsylvania. But given the reality of politics, last week’s job-creation report should not be the end of the discussion about the economic climate in this state.

There is more to know behind the government-issued numbers and that analysis should be part of a discussion about the state’s economic climate and Rendell’s performance.