Looking at Mitch Daniel’s Single Organizational Goal
by Mike Kimel
Looking at Mitch Daniel’s Single Organizational Goal
So I took a break form useful work and wandered over to a few right wing blogs to see what’s going on at that end of the world. Here’s how the latest post at Betsy’s Page starts:
Andrew Ferguson profiles Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. I think I’ve found a politician I could support whole-heartedly. Daniels is described as the un-Obama because “he seems to have sunk into a black hole of personal magnetism and come out the other side, where the very lack of charisma becomes charismatic.” If he’s the un-Obama, it’s because of his understanding of the role of government and his dedication to achieving that goal.
Daniels gathered his agency heads on his first day and told them they were henceforth to pursue a single organizational goal—all successful businesses unite their efforts behind a goal, he said. His was this: “We will do everything we can to raise the net disposable income of individual Hoosiers.”
From here, we get a tour of this and that – things that Daniels has done or supposedly has done or wants to do or whatever. But by then I had tuned out. Because after Betsy’s start, my first thought is: “That’s a fine goal. How is it coming?”
My second thought was how I could check this in a hurry. Now, raising the net disposable income of individual Hoosiers (or anyone else, for that matter) is, to be honest, relatively easy. In general, incomes, net disposable or otherwise, tend to rise. A more useful question is the net disposable incomes of Hoosers are doing relative to the incomes of similarly situated people – say those in neighboring states.
Getting the net disposable income of Indiana and its neighboring states isn’t straightforward – I don’t think its directly reported anywhere, and one has to track down the components separately. But FRED will give you the per capita personal income in Indiana, and each of the other states as well. And the main component of net disposable income is…. income. Data runs through 2009.
Now, my man Mitch became governor on January 10, 2005. FRED reports figures as of January 1 of each year, so we can show incomes in each state over a four year period, indexed to 2005. Its only four years, but that’s a full term. We judge Carter and Bush Sr. on precisely that, right. So here’s what things look like, in Indiana and the surrounding states:
Figure 1
Now, perhaps you’ve spotted the problem with the Daniels hagiography. And as a bonus, I’ll let you on a secret… in the prior four years, from 2001 to 2005, Indiana beat out Ohio. And the difference between Indiana and Michigan was bigger in 2001 than 2005. And the difference between the growth rates in Indiana and Michigan is greater from 2001 to 2005 than from 2005 to 2009.
Thanks.
Now maybe things will change going forward, but so far, on what Daniels considers the the single organizational goal of his administration, Indiana has moved in the wrong direction since he’s taken office.
If by some chance Daniels becomes a more prominent character in national politics, I’ll take a look at some of how he’s done on secondary issues. But I’m not all encouraged, especially since I remember his performance as OMB Director very well.
Having a single organizational goal isn’t magic. Gov. Daniels may have emerged from a black hole, but I see no evidence his state has. You’re in bad shape when only Michigan is worse off. Nancy O.
Mike, I find only one clue in your graph. That is the best way to weather a recession is to have one of yours elected Prez. Otherwise, the slopes, what really matters, look nearly identical.
What i was looking for was a change in the Indiana slope after 2005. Nope! Not there. What’s the difference between IN and OH? That may be more important than the snark represented in your article.
The difference between Ohio and Indiana. Ohio has more paved roads and more major cities.
Be careful about Mitch Daniels, though. He is a clever, clever politician, a real snake in the grass. Despite being the former CEO of Eli Lilly, he paraded around in 2004 in a 30 year old Winnebago with “My Man Mitch” painted on the side. He put on a hokey accent and a Gomer Pyle kind of attitude, and won easily. He sold the toll road and crippled local governments’ abilities to raise revenue, which has really affected a lot of police, fire, teachers, and local projects. But, he can boast about the bond rating that it brought. Watch out for him. He can spin those deceptive claims about how he stabilized the finances, show how good Indiana is doing compared to poor old Michigan or reformed the tax system based on conservative ideals.
While places like Angry Bear can rather easily dismantle the arguments, they look really good in 30 second tv spots, trust me. His re-election campaign was an impressive onslaught of television commercials touting his “accomplishments” and leadership, bought from his considerable war chest. He will be a formidable opponent.
I think that it is early enough to affect the narrative before the conservative punditocracy and spin doctors finish crafting the myth. He has had some bad ideas, including pushing ahead with the state treasurer with a preposterous lawsuit against the federal government regarding the loans to Chrysler. 99% of Chrysler debt holders declined to participate, and the case suffered a humiliating defeat. However, the assistance to Chrysler was a success, with the loans being paid back much faster than anticipated, and Chrysler is now expanding its facilities in Indiana and creating thousands of new jobs. Had Daniels and Mourdock had their way, tens of thousands would be out of work. Yet, this doesn’t stop him from penning an op/ed intended to distract folks from this issue, and insted focus on his own misleading account of the loan to the company.
CoRev,
The clue is that under my man Mitch, income doesn’t grow as fast in Indiana as it does in any of its neighboring states except Michigan. And while Indiana was doing better than Ohio before Mitch took office, it wasn’t after he took office.
But say we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that Indiana performs about the same as its neighbors. (Not quite true… and you should know that small annual changes compound up to big differences over time.) Even that should not be an endorsement – after all, it would simply say he’s an ordinary governor, as best.
Joe,
That difference that you point out was there before and after Mitch took office. And yet the difference that I point out was between before Mitch took office and after.
Dean,
Maybe I’m wrong, but he might not be as formidable a candidate as some of the more obviously crazy folks. First, he might not be able to get the social conservatives on his side. Second, whereas the crazies might simply repeat their nonsense no matter what evidence to the contrary comes up, Daniels tries to argue as a reasonable man. Which means he may have to deal with actual evidence in a way that a Huckabee, say, might not.
I thought your book argues that presidents are responsible, so which is it?
Dogma,
1. The President is responsible, but that doesn’t mean he’s the only one who has any influence. The book (and past posts) have noted the influence of other entities, such as the Fed.
2. Wrt this post… whatever is the cause of what is happening in the national economy (and you don’t have to agree with my book for this post to work) there are still going to be positive effects and negative effects at the local level. The argument is made (not by me, mind you) that Daniels is doing a good job, and his stated goal is improving income. Which presumably should mean that incomes in Indiana should be improving as quickly or more quickly than incomes in surrounding states at the same time. (And at the same time is key – whatever is going on in the national economy shouldn’t affect Indiana differently than it affects its neighbors.)
Mike, you are probably right, but for some reason, I would rather see the moonbats emerge victorious from the primaries and face off against a more rational Obama. Despite what Fox News polls say, the Palins of the world would likely get beat 55-45 in a general. What is dangerous about a Mitch Daniels is that people can easily accept him as a non-extremist. However, his policies would still reflect the ideological hatred of any regulation, income tax progressivity, investment in infrastructure, or other aspects of the Democratic platform that tend to resonate with those in the middle. He would be no friend to the consumer, the little guy, clean air or water, safety of the workplace, and would do little to nothing to regulate the financial markets.
Still, I’d much rather deal with President Mitch than President Sarah or Huck.
Dean is correct that Mr. Daniels political aspirations should not be underestimated. He is a better W than W himself.
Mr. Daniels first major policy announcement after his inauguration was to end collective bargaining with the public sector unions for pay and benefits. The second major policy decision was to privatize (Milton Friedman would be so proud) a large part of the state’s public service infrastructure. This action transferred a very large number of public sector Hoosier jobs to the private sector.
Even though this transfer was touted as cost saving for the Hoosier taxpayer the cost of privatization exceeded those of the system it replaced and more importantly reduced the ability of Hoosiers in need to access their social safety net. The privatization action also resulted in falling incomes of those Hoosiers whose jobs were transferred to the private sector. The privatitazion action alone would explain the increased rate of falling Hoosier incomes compared with surrounding states.
Dean is correct that Mr. Daniels political aspirations should not be underestimated. He is a better W than W himself.
Mr. Daniels first major policy announcement after his inauguration was to end collective bargaining with the public sector unions for pay and benefits. The second major policy decision was to privatize (Milton Friedman would be so proud) a large part of the state’s public service infrastructure. This action transferred a very large number of public sector Hoosier jobs to the private sector.
Even though this transfer was touted as cost saving for the Hoosier taxpayer the cost of privatization exceeded those of the system it replaced and more importantly reduced the ability of Hoosiers in need to access their social safety net. The privatization action also resulted in falling incomes of those Hoosiers whose jobs were transferred to the private sector. The privatitazion action alone would explain the increased rate of falling Hoosier incomes compared with surrounding states.
Dean is correct that Mr. Daniels political aspirations should not be underestimated. He is a better W than W himself.
Mr. Daniels first major policy announcement after his inauguration was to end collective bargaining with the public sector unions for pay and benefits. The second major policy decision was to privatize (Milton Friedman would be so proud) a large part of the state’s public service infrastructure. This action transferred a very large number of public sector Hoosier jobs to the private sector.
Even though this transfer was touted as cost saving for the Hoosier taxpayer the cost of privatization exceeded those of the system it replaced and more importantly reduced the ability of Hoosiers in need to access their social safety net. The privatization action also resulted in falling incomes of those Hoosiers whose jobs were transferred to the private sector. The privatitazion action alone would explain the increased rate of falling Hoosier incomes compared with surrounding states.
Dean
Its a tough question. Sometimes I’m in one boat, sometimes in the other.