My parents are about to move out of Michigan, where I lived for my first 22 years, and where my dad lived for his first 61. In Michigan, as everybody knows, the economy rises or falls with the automobile industry. Right now the automobile industry is imploding, and waves of economic distress are emanating throughout the state. The Wall Street Journal has a lead editorial today on Michigan's ailing economy. Incredibly--or, given that it's the Journal editorial page, predictably--the editorial presents Michigan's woes as primarily the result of Governor Jennifer Granholm's Big Government agenda. Granholm (who is a moderate, pro-business Democrat) has proposed to eliminate the state's "single-business tax" and replace it with other, less economically-onerous levies. The Journal complains that Granholm doesn't go far enough, and should instead eliminate the tax and not replace the lost revenues at all. This is standard Journal voodoo economics, but it's not the interesting thing here. The interesting thing is that the Journal is arguing that the state's financial distress is a result of Granholm's plan. It begins with the news of Comerica, a large bank based in Michigan, announcing it was leaving the state. The Journal interprets the news thusly: "Consider it one more vote of confidence in the state the national expansion forgot, and especially in Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's economic agenda." Got that? Especially Granholm's economic agenda. More than halfway through the editorial, there is a brief mention that perhaps some other factors may play a wee role here: "It's true that some of Michigan's current woes are due to the secular decline of the U.S. auto makers and their unionized lack of competitiveness." What a big concession. Sort of like interpreting the post-9/11 recession on President Bush's tax cut, while parenthetically noting that perhaps certain international events may have played a role as well. --Jonathan Chait