From Cal Thomas in the C-J...

When President Obama visited Elkhart, Ind., on Feb. 9 to flog his economic stimulus plan (a.k.a. more government spending), he saw a struggling town in the midst of a relatively prosperous state. Had he taken the time to visit Indianapolis and meet with Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, he would have seen a different picture.

Indiana has a $1.3 billion surplus and a "rainy day fund" made up of contributions that come from a unique concept these days: government spending less than it receives from taxpayers, without raiding its cash reserves....

The state ranks first in the Midwest for its business climate (and fifth in the nation), reports Site Selection magazine, Nov. 2008. According to Forbes, Indiana has the lowest business cost index in the Midwest and sixth lowest in the country. And most important of all in this "government knows best" climate, Indiana ranks first in the Midwest and 14th nationally in the Tax Foundation's 2009 Business Tax Climate Index....

Indiana can balance its budget without tax hikes because Daniels doesn't see government as primary, but somewhere down the list behind initiative, risk-taking, personal responsibility and accountability....

Interestingly/oddly, the relevant C-J editor (Runyon, Hawpe, or other?) decided that Thomas' work needed some clarification/correction-- and added this statement next to the op-ed:

For the record: What columnist Cal Thomas fails to report is that among the reasons for Indiana's prosperity was the passage of a 1-cent increase in the state sales tax in 2007, with Gov. Mitch Daniels' strong support. Thomas also fails to mention the windfall of $3.8 billion the state received from the lease of the Indiana toll road to foreign interests.

Four things bear mention here:

1.) In a back-handed way, the editor is acknowledging effective leadership from Gov. Daniels.

2.) The sales tax increase per se would not cause Indiana's prosperity. Moreover, the combination of a sales-tax increase and the property-tax decrease was a net tax decrease. Is the editor applauding a tax cut?

3.) The editor seems to endorse the toll road lease plan-- or more likely, seems to think it is somehow separate from Daniels' governance (as if the money fell like manna from Heaven).

4.) I look forward to the times when a C-J editor will correct far loopier things said by a liberal writer. But I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting for that...