Above the fray.  That apparently is Gov. Mitch Daniels’ campaign strategy.  While he does plan to debate Democrat Jill Long Thompson three times this fall, it looks as though he plans on minimizing all other discussion of her or her programs.  When Long Thompson holds a news conference to unveil a program or proposal, the only time you can get a sound bite directly from the governor is if he has a public event on another topic.

  Generally his campaign produces a spokesperson to do the reply.  But in the past week or so, even that has gotten difficult.  The campaign is now shifting reporters to Republican Party people for on-camera responses, putting another layer between Daniels and his challenger.

  It’s all reminiscent of a 1980 campaign episode involving Republican Bob Orr and Democrat John Hillenbrand.  Having debates wasn’t universally expected then as it is now.  But the Bloomington Public TV station invited both to a candidates’ night, along with about a dozen legislative candidates.  Orr didn’t come, but Hillenbrand did.  And, amazingly, he went on the air anyway, along with the people running for the House and Senate, sitting in the back row.  Talk about minimizing yourself in front of the voters!

  Long Thompson certaintly isn’t doing anything like that.  But it just shows how the person holding the upper hand can marginalize the challenger just by keeping a certain distance.  So unless Long Thompson says something that really makes the governor mad (think Pat Bauer and the infamous car-bombing remark), don’t expect him to directly say much, if anything to any of her proposals this fall.

  Many drivers and business owners on the East side are feeling hoodwinked by INDOT, and it’s hard to disagree with them.  This is the area that suffered most from the eight-month Super 70 project last year.  Now they’re about to undergo the Orange Barrel Nightmare again.  And many are asking, “Why?”

  Next Monday, or thereabouts, INDOT will close the eastbound on-ramp at Shadeland Avenue.  For two months, you won’t be able to get on eastbound I-70 or north or southbound I-465.  Work crews will rebuild the bridge that takes that ramp over Shadeland, because the steel rebars are coming through the pavement.  When was this discovered?  Last week?  Last month?  No, engineers discovered it last year during the Super Seventy project.

  So why wasn’t it fixed at the same time?  Because, according to INDOT, this bridge was not part of that project.  The Super Seventy contract only called for rebuilding the mainline I-70 bridges at that point.  Repairing the other bridge would have meant bidding out a separate contract.  Still, it seems it would have made sense to do all the work at once.  But INDOT says no, that traffic was already being squeezed and backed up, and adding more work would have made it worse.

  Drivers and business people we talked with in the area disagree.  They would have preferred to get all the pain over with at the same time.  And some are suspicious of INDOT’s motives for the delay.  One sharp driver recalled (with no prompting on our part) that the Super 70 contractor got a big bonus for finishing the project early.  Given INDOT’s history of cozy relationships with its contractors, he wonders if the state’s engineers conveniently forgot about the ramp bridge to avoid creating a delay that would have cost their buddies their bonus.

  Even taking INDOT at its word, you have to question why they waited so long to even inform people about the problem, then dropped this bomb on them just a few days before the work is to start.  Sure, drivers can find alternate routes without much notice.  But how about business people, who need to educate their customers on alternate routes so they don’t lose their business and who might need to reduce their purchases so they’re not stuck with merchandise they can’t sell to the reduced traffic?

  It all seems like the typical INDOT way of operation.  It’s all about the department’s convenience and its contractors and not the convenience of the people who pay the bills.  Remember last November, when most of the Super 70 work was done, but INDOT adamantly refused to pull up the barrels in those areas and let drivers return to the normal speed limit?  Department officials came up with all sorts of lame excuses about why they couldn’t do it.  But the real reason seemed to be that they just didn’t want to take the trouble to do it, because it would only benefit drivers.  And the same motive seems to be in operation here.

  Well, it’s good to be back from vacation (okay, we all know it isn’t, but that’s the correct thing to say), but I’m still cranky from jet lag (six hours between here and Poland), so I’m going to do a cranky post today.  So here goes.

  I know it’s too late to do anything about it (not that they’d listen to me anyway).  But am I the only one who thinks Lucas Oil Stadium is ugly?  My biggest complaint is that it doesn’t look like a football stadium, which I believe a football stadium should.  I’m not sure exactly what I think it does look like.  I have three options.  1. an airplane hangar (a really huge one, maybe for the space shuttle)  2. a barn  or 3. a basketball arena.

  It definitely is impressive as you approach downtown, especially from the airport, maybe a bit too overwhelming.  I’ve never seen a stadium (and I’ve seen most of them) that just rises up like the alien spaceship in Independence Day.  Of course it has to be big to accommodate all those money-making suites, gift shops, and concessions.  Money-making for the Colts, that is, not the people who paid for the stadium.  And it has to be big for that roof.  And my question is, will that roof be worth all that money and added size in the end?  My suspicion is that Colts fans are so used to never having to experience even the slightest discomfort, weather-wise, that the roof will almost always be closed.  Maybe it will be open for a couple of games in October, providing it doesn’t rain.  But is that really worth all the money it’s costing?

  The more I think about it, the more I think it looks more like a basketball arena, which should surprise no one in Indiana.  But don’t we already have one of those?  Conseco Fieldhouse is one of the country’s best basketball arenas, and it makes you feel like you’re going to a basketball game when you go inside.  But what will Lucas Oil Stadium make you feel like?  That you’re boarding an aircraft carrier?

  All right, class.  Time for today’s math lesson.  Subject:  The state budget.  Question:  How can revenue from a state tax meet expectations while being below the forecast, and both at the same time?  Answer:  Because they divided the tax into two pieces.

  The subject here is the state sales tax.  When reporters were given the year-end close-out figures on Thursday, my attention immediately leaped to the sales tax, because that was the tax raised by one penny to fund property tax relief.  The report showed the tax falling more than $46 million below the forecast for May and June.  (Yes, I know it was increased on April 1st.  But since businesses don’t remit the sales tax they collect until the following month, May and June are the only months for which the higher tax has been turned in to the state.)

   But there was one catch.  These figures were only for the 6% sales tax rate before it was increased.  At the bottom of the page, however, was a separate entry showing the collections from the 6%, the collections from the 1%, and the total added together to make 7%.  The problem was that the Budget Agency didn’t include any forecast for the 7% figure so we could determine whether the amount collected was on track.  Simple me, I went back to the top and multiplied the 6% forecast by one and one/sixth, thinking that would give me the answer.  And, lo and behold, it showed the tax revenue falling short by $55 million.

  But aides to Auditor Tim Berry told me I was wrong, that the one percent tax was on track, even though the six percent tax wasn’t.  Huh?  Isn’t it one tax?  Don’t they collect it at the same time?  When I buy something that costs a dollar, I don’t fork over $1.06, then give them another penny separately.

  Well, here’s the explanation, as provided by Office of Management and Budget Director Ryan Kitchell.  The forecast for the 6% was done back in December, when Indiana’s version of the Gnomes of Zurich make their annual visit to the Statehouse to make their predictions for the state’s economy and what it will produce in the way of tax revenue.  They couldn’t forecast for 7%, because the legislature hadn’t approved that rate at the time.  The forecast for the one percent was done in March, after the legislature okayed it.  But by that time, conditions had changed.  The economy was going in the tank.  So the experts gave a reduced forecast for the new one percent.  Not one sixth of the original forecast, but lower.

  So that leaves us with a seeming contradiction.  We’re paying a 7% tax, in which 6 of those pennies are turning in a lower than expected total, while the other 1 penny is meeting expectations.

  In the end, of course, it all goes into, and then out of, the same pocket?  Will the sales tax produce enough to provide the property tax relief promised to Indiana homeowners?  Leaders on both sides, Republican Governor Mitch Daniels and Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Crawford, gave me an absolute Yes.  Everything else would get cut before property tax relief.  What else could they say?  They saw what happened to Bart Peterson.

 Well, the Republicans have a candidate for the Seventh Congressional District.  They may have four, in fact, for Friday’s caucus of district precinct chairs to pick a replacement for Jon Elrod.  But after this morning’s performance by the favored candidate of party leaders, I’m still not sure what they have.

  Social Worker Gabrielle Campo, who I’m told made a good impression when running against Elrod earlier this year, announced her candidacy at an 11 a.m. news conference at City Market.  But after telling us who she is and what her priorities are (energy, jobs, and education—who’d have guessed), she bounded away without answering questions on any of them, saying she had to go file her papers.  When I asked her if she intended to leave without talking to the media, she hesitated, then said she could maybe stay for one question.  So I asked her how she would “rein in” (her words) energy prices.  She said she’d talk about that after the precinct caucus, then swept away again, this time not to be stopped.

  Seventh District Chairman John Hammond, who’s been pushing Campo, told me he was sure I could track her down and ask her questions.  But why would I do that?  She was right there, a candidate nobody knows without any money facing an incumbent Congressman in Andre Carson, and she wouldn’t answer reporters’ questions that might get her more valuable air time on the news tonight?

  Later Ms. Campo called me on the phone and said she’d been advised not to answer any questions until after the caucus.  When I asked her why someone would advise her to do that, she said she didn’t know.  Wouldn’t you think that if you were a precinct chair voting on your party’s candidate for something as important as Congress, you’d want to know where she stands?

  I’m told Campo is an unusual Republican candidate, one who’s ideal to run against Carson.  Is that code for “more liberal than the average Marion County Republican”?  If so, maybe that’s why she isn’t supposed to talk until after the very conservative precinct chairs vote.  But if that’s the case, maybe she shouldn’t have had a big splashy announcement and invited the media.