One gets the strong impression that Hoosiers are pleased with how their state government is working. One crude proxy for this is the governor’s approval rating. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 75% percent of Indiana residents approve of Mitch Daniels’ performance thus far. As of the 2008 exit polls, 41% of Hoosiers identified as Republicans while 36% identified as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. This suggests that Daniels is performing relatively well with Democrats and independents.

More interestingly, the governor has maintained high approval ratings while paring back Indiana’s workforce. The following is from Erin McPike’s recent report in RealClearPolitics:

According to data provided by Indiana officials to RealClearPolitics, 29,008 people were employed by the state’s government as of Sept. 30. That number is down from 35,276 full-time employees when Daniels took office in January of 2005 – a reduction of 17.8 percent during Daniels’s nearly six years in office.
Indiana employed 29,210 state workers in 1975, meaning the state has fewer full-time workers now than it had 35 years ago.

At the same time, employment in some domains has increased:

“The vast majority of this reduction was achieved through attrition rather than layoffs,” said Daniels’s chief political aide, Eric Holcomb.
Holcomb also noted that under Daniels, Indiana’s law enforcement has grown by more than 250 state troopers, which helped the state achieve a modern-day low in traffic fatalities. Eight hundred child case workers also were added to the state payroll.

My view is that having a low number of state workers per capita shouldn’t be the highest priority. California has a relatively low number of state workers per capita, and the quality of public services is fairly low. Rather, I think sustainability should be the priority: a small workforce that is highly productive and compensated accordingly could be sustainable, as it improves the quality of public amenities that attracts taxpaying households and firms. Similarly, a large workforce that works as well in the aggregate yet imposes a sustainable tax burden is, in my view, a perfectly acceptable outcome, provided there isn’t an underlying political dynamic that will press for limitless expansion of said workforce.

Have you seen any indication that the Daniels administration is cutting too deeply in some areas? Let me know.