During a Republican presidential primary debate back in August, all of the candidates on stage raised their hand to indicate that they would reject a budget deal that included 10 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in new government revenue. According to Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN) — who was courted to run for the GOP presidential nomination — if he had been on that stage, he would have been the only one to give a 10 to 1 budget deal a longer look:

DANIELS: I thought it was the single best question anybody’s asked so far. Perfectly fair question. I would not have raised my hand. Now, I would have instantly been called on to explain that. You know, there’s no penalty for piling on in these things. So I’m sure that would have happened, but here’s what I would have said. I wish somebody would have said this.

I would have said, not that I’ll take the deal but tell me more. [...] If somebody’s got an approach that generates greater revenues, there’s a reasonable chance that it encourages private-sector growth — and I think that’s possible — I think it’s a mistake to close the door.

Watch it:

Daniels has — relative to today’s GOP — tended towards some level of tax sanity, telling Newsweek, “at some stage there could well be a tax increase. They say we can’t have grown-up conversations anymore. I think we can.”

But he hasn’t completely isolated himself from some of the extreme views of his party’s presidential contenders. For instance, in his newly-released book, he largely agrees with Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (though he has since tried to walk that back, telling National Public Radio that he won’t use the term again).

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) — like House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) — walked back his endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) charge that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” today, telling NPR that he won’t use the term again. While many Republicans have been uncomfortable or outright hostile to Perry’s hyperbolic and false characterization of the popular federal program, Daniels lent it support last week, saying the only problem was that Perry was “too frank.”

But when NPR host Diane Rehm challenged Daniels on the claim his morning, the popular governor relented, acknowledging that the characterization was “trite” and perhaps “too casual”:

REHM: But you agreed with [Perry]. You called it a “Ponzi scheme” as well.

DANIELS: Well, I said that’s a place to start. But again, people of every persuasion have used that — maybe it’s too casual an allusion. [...]

REHM: To use that word signals that it is fraudulent and it’s not fraudulent.

DANIELS: Well, you know, I’ll be careful not use it again.

Listen here:

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme by any stretch of the imagination — PolitiFact rated the claim “false” — and it’s positive to see Daniels acknowledge such and say he won’t use the term again.

But that commitment makes Daniels’ newly published book, which is why we went on Rehm’s show in the first place, already out of date. In it, “he doesn’t say the exact words ‘Ponzi scheme,’ but only because he’s more verbose than that,” Politico reported. “This whole setup is enough to give Mr. Ponzi a bad name — or a legitimate job,” Daniels wrote in the book.

Daniels joins House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who also recently flip-flopped on whether Social Security is a “ponzi scheme,” saying, “It’s not the word I would choose to describe” the program.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), who was once courted to run for president, attacked President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on millionaires, telling Fox News host Greta Van Susteren last night that Obama’s policies have already created “a lot fewer” wealthy people:

DANIELS: You know, the president keeps ranting on and on about these, you know, millionaires he dislikes so much. By the way, he ought to feel pretty good. There are a lot fewer of them than there were when he became president. Just look at the statistics.

Watch it:

Daniels’ claim plays into the GOP’s new “class warfare” talking point, but if one actually “look[s] at the statistics,” one has to wonder if Daniels thinks it’s opposite day. As the Wall Street Journal reported in late June, there are actually a record number of millionaires now, two and half years into the Obama administration:

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.[...]

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

According to a different group’s measurement of millionaires, the number of millionaires grew 16 percent in 2009, Obama’s first year in office, and another 8 percent in 2010.

In fact, the growth in the number and wealth of millionaires over the past two years exposes the fallacy of Daniels’ argument — these people don’t need any more help. The growth of the wealthy, and especially the super-wealthy, while the middle- and working-class have seen wages stagnate or drop shows the “two-speed recovery,” which has been good for millionaires but bad for everyone else.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) have sparred recently over their slightly differing views regarding the future of Social Security, with Perry denouncing the program as an unconstitutional “Ponzi scheme” and Romney hitting back from Perry’s left, ignoring not just his own support for privatizing the program but also his refusal to consider the easiest way to make it viable for the next three-quarters of a century.

This weekend, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), once considered a potential front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, weighed in on the growing controversy that has engulfed the race. After urging the party’s candidates to be more honest with voters about the country’s future, however, Daniels said the only problem with Perry’s position on Social Security was that it was “too frank,” and his failure to explain it was unnecessarily scary, the New York Times reports:

“I don’t think any of this is very helpful,” Mr. Daniels said. “If there’s a problem with ‘Ponzi scheme,’ it is that it’s too frank, not that it’s wrong. But by stopping there, he might be unnecessarily scaring people.”

Republicans have had a hard time with Perry’s characterization of Social Security, as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) refused to say whether he agreed when he endorsed Perry and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) saying that Perry really meant he wanted to “preserve this valuable safety net program.” But as Matt Yglesias notes, the answer is simple: Social Security is simply not a Ponzi scheme.

Daniels is right on one count: the Republican presidential candidates aren’t being honest with the American people about the future of Social Security. Unfortunately, neither is he. Social Security can pay out full benefits until 2037, and raising the payroll tax cap and allowing income over $106,800 to be taxed for Social Security purposes would make it solvent for the next 75 years.

Mitch Daniels may be proud of its surplus, but it came from deep sacrifices from state workers.

As many states continue to grapple with budget crises that arose as a result of the recession, Indiana appears to stand out from the crowd. The state announced yesterday that it “closed out the budget year that ended June 30 with a surplus of about $1.2 billion.”

While this may seem like a laudable achievement, when you look at how the state reached this number, the surplus is much less impressive. Yesterday, state Auditor Tim Berry admitted that a major reason Indiana has such a large surplus is because it was “built on the backs of state employees,” who had to take on longer workloads and reduced compensation. Referring to these employees, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) praised them for their “terrific job of cost control“:

State Auditor Tim Berry called the state workers who bore most of those budget cuts via greater workloads, “heroes.” “The surplus was built on the backs of state employees,” said Berry, after he thanked them for tightening their belts. [...] “More money in Hoosiers’ incomes and a terrific job of cost control by state employees working together combined to produce an even stronger result than we expected at budget time,” Daniels said in a statement Thursday. He planned a Friday morning press conference to discuss the budget.

Indeed, Indiana achieved its surplus only by taking the most regressive of measures, not by asking for any sacrifice by some of its wealthiest citizens. In addition to sacrifices made by the state’s public workers, the state’s Department of Child Services took a $104 million budget cut last year, and the state’s K-12 education system lost $491 million over the last two fiscal years.

While balancing the state’s budget is actually required by law in Indiana, having such a surplus is no great accomplishmnent if it was done in a way that harmed the state’s economy and hurt the wages, benefits, and conditions of hard-working middle class Indianans while leaving the wealthiest untouched.