A historically bleak revenue forecast.

Executive orders aimed at health and wellness.

Plus, the property tax debate is over.

And more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending April 18th, 2025.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

This week, all options are on the table for the state budget, as lawmakers will have $2 billion less to spend than previously expected.

The state revenue forecast unveiled Wednesday is the worst since at least the Great Recession.

National economic uncertainty is driving the sharp decline in projected tax revenue.

$2.4 billion less over a three year period than what was expected just four months ago.

Senate Budget architect Ryan Mishler says these numbers scare him a lot more than during the Great Recession.

Back then, if you remember, we had federal money to backfill it.

We don't have any federal money to backfill.

This is all on us.

Lawmakers say all options are on the table, from budget cuts to increasing some taxes, like those on cigarettes or alcohol.

Democratic Representative Greg Porter says K-12 education should be spared from the chopping block.

We don't have a good education system except where people are not going to come here and live.

We have to create a pipeline of of of development.

Lawmakers intend to finalize the budget within the next two weeks.

How alarming is this revenue forecast?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Chris Mitchum, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith, back in the saddle this week to talk about such good news.

Ann Delaney, how bad is this forecast?

Oh, it's pretty bad.

It's.

And we're not talking about a rounding error here.

We're talking about a substantial difference.

And the Republicans who have controlled this entire state for so many years have been completely irresponsible fiscally.

I mean, they have we have this voucher program that's mushroomed out of control.

We have tax cuts that go on for years without regard to these kinds of situations.

And it's completely fiscally irresponsible.

They have to step up now, and they're going to have to make up that revenue.

They're at least going to have to do it until January.

But then I'm sure Trump says he's going to have the economy just humming away, like he's going to settle the war.

And in the Gaza, and he's going to settle the war in the Ukraine and everything is going to be hunky dory.

So it's just a short term fix that they have to come up with.

That's lawmakers say everything's on the table.

I don't think everything is on the table, I think.

cannabis legalization, which some have floated as a way to generate revenue that doesn't seem on the table, not in the budget.

Dramatic gaming expansion, which has been floated as a way to generate revenue, doesn't really seem on the table.

But beyond that is everything on the table.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, that's I think that's one of the this situation is not good.

But one of the good things is I think there are more obvious options there.

I mean, I'm actually thankful that we have the budget writers in power that we do now, because the people that have been praising the reserves have just been on a roll recently.

We have Covid, you had the billion dollar Medicaid shortfall and now you have this.

Thankfully, we continue to have a really nice level of reserves to help address certain issues like this.

And when you talk about the the options that are there, you know, are you going to pause the the income tax restrictions that you see the cigaret tax?

Just hearing comments from the different legislative leaders seem something that's.

$2 would generate 800 million.

That's 800 800 million.

Like I said, you have the reserves there.

So while this is bleak, a lot of it isn't the state's fault.

I'll give you that.

I think all of the the budget forecast folks kept referencing just the uncertainty at the federal level.

So while these drastic cuts.

That we're all that.

Uncertainty, all these drastic cuts aren't there per se.

It's just the uncertainty, again, wanting to be responsible, making sure that we approach this in a responsible way, to make sure that, you know, things that Hoosiers need aren't cut.

legislative leaders have said, I think, I think the number that House Speaker Todd Houston said when talking about the reserves.

So the the House budget put the reserve level at something like in the 12% range, of the total budget.

that's how much would be left in reserves.

The Senate budget, bumped that up even more than the 13 to mid 13% range.

Now Todd Houston is talking about taking that down closer to like 10%.

Gives you a little more money to spend in the budget while still keeping a healthy reserve.

But at the same time, these numbers in the forecast, our projected revenue could get a lot worse in the next few months.

So doesn't that, conversely, almost make you want to pad the reserves a little more?

Well, thank goodness we do have a reserve, and I guess budget architects get credit for that.

But let's not forget that it's the supermajority in both chambers that, prevented the, surplus from being even bigger than what it is now because of some of the automatic refunds and disbursements that were triggered at certain levels.

And over the past several budget sessions, there were people who wanted to, rather than return small.

No, every money, all money's important.

But what's the average check?

I mean, we're talking dollars.

Enough for dinner, maybe, for one, McDonald's.

There we go.

I don't do commercials, but, I'll defer to you for that around that.

Or keep the state, you know, flush with with resources so it can weather these kinds of storms.

So good.

Yes, that we do have a surplus.

Thank goodness we're better off than most every other state in that regard.

But too bad, I guess, in a certain way.

Some would say that we don't because of the various tax cuts and because of all the various refund triggers that were set up in recent budget cycles, we didn't have even more to to deal with this sort of crisis.

Obviously, Republicans really don't want to increase taxes.

the Senate Republicans more resistant to that than any other caucus in the state House.

But at this point, would it be harder to justify the cuts that are going to have to be made, no matter what, if they don't do anything to generate more work?

Yeah.

And even, you know, we got this forecast on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Mishler Senator Mishler was saying, I don't want to put the cigarette tax increase in until we have the Medicaid for until we have the new forecast, because you don't know.

Well, now we know.

And so the fact is, is if Senate Republicans aren't amenable to a cigarette tax increase now, it's just never, never going to happen.

they obviously desperately need the revenue.

It statistically reduces smoking and health care costs.

So yeah.

It's not a long term solution because that money decreases over time, which is part of the goal of increasing this.

Yeah.

They're going to have to you know they're already cutting child care access, you know, lowering the entitlement or eligibility for that.

You know, the voucher program that House Republicans expect.

You know, that's going to be hard expanding that to a family that makes $1 million a year while you're cutting, you know, public health funding and Snap.

And those are going to be hard discussions to have.

I mean, it feels feels a little like the trade, right?

House Republicans and Democrats in both chambers.

But House Republicans have been on board with increasing the cigaret tax for years.

Well, they get that.

Maybe they don't get their voucher expansion to to true universal vouchers.

But even if you scaled it back to the level it was currently, that's.

Not going to happen.

No, I don't I don't think they're going to roll it back.

But even if you do keep.

It where it is.

That's my point.

That's my point that that alone is not going.

I would not say no, no, no.

I mean, that's I think it was like 170.

The bigger chunk was last budget cycle when it was when the dramatic change in eligibility was made.

Irresponsible position of expanding them.

Yes.

I would just say going back to the uncertainty portion of this, though, I think it'll be really interesting to see moving forward how hard the legislature sticks with their whole we're not messing with the budget in a non budget year because I mean, they're just saying that this uncertainty, the things at the federal level could change next month six months, eight months.

So exactly.

So I think going forward seeing how well they.

Stick with them, I mean, I think that was brought up in, in a discussion with either Speaker Houston or Senator Bray yesterday.

And the question about dipping into the, you know, opening up the budget in the short session.

And it was very answer was very much we really hate to do that.

We've done it in the past for little things.

We try not to do it at all.

But I think to your point, like it'll be interesting to see how much authority or leeway they give the governor to make decisions sort of on his own.

If if federal funding gets cut off in big ways or that sort of thing.

Well, that's a best case scenario if you wait until this short session, if federal funding gets cut off in certain areas.

Yeah.

Or reduced dramatically, say, in funding for Medicaid.

Session.

Special session is much more likely than worrying about whether or not they're going to open the budget next.

Session as an emergency, which is the reason why the short session even exists in the.

First place.

All right, time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is should lawmakers raise some taxes, like those on cigarets and alcohol, to help avoid some budget cuts?

A yes or b no?

Last week we asked you whether lawmakers will land on meaningful property tax reform this year, 14% of you said yes, 86% said no.

We'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes.

But if you'd like to take part in the poll, put a wii.org slash we're and look for the poll Well governor Mike Braun unveiled a new health initiative this week, which makes several significant changes to the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, or Snap program.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Abigail Ruhman reports the top U.S. health official says the changes go further than any other states so far.

Braun signed a series of executive orders introducing changes to Snap, including an overhaul of the employment and training program, limiting eligibility and removing candy and soft drinks from snap benefits.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr says Indiana is the first state to exclude Candy.

He says the proposed changes have already been submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which also sets Indiana apart.

I also want to take this moment to encourage governors all over the country and do that to follow the lead of Indiana, Kennedy says Braun's executive orders align with the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again campaign.

Chris, how does this address health versus just seeming to punish poor people?

Yeah, I don't I don't think we're punishing poor people.

I think Governor Braun is refreshingly taking a step back from the whole conversation of what do we fund?

Who do we fund?

Where do we fund it and try to address what I think everybody has kind of agreed upon, which is what is that main driving cost factor of health services, which is health metrics.

Right.

And I think whenever you have to start trying to nail down to those personal responsibility decisions that Hoosiers would have to have just to live healthier, you have to try to find that balance between how much does the government try to influence those decisions, especially probably more so for a Republican governor, small government guy, but is also encouraging.

And I think they landed on a good spot here.

You're not saying that, you know, people on snap can't buy sugary drinks.

You're just saying the money that is given to you from the government, you know, you might have to opt, you know, for the orange juice instead of the Mountain Dew.

And I think the rest of the executive orders do a really good job of that holistic approach.

I mean, you're talking about, you know, the training program from the FSA, how that's being woefully under performing.

So how do we make sure to get that to try to help the people on snap get into all of these jobs that are available?

you know, you're talking about the the youth physical tests, making sure we're encouraging that from a young age.

Indiana's a top ten state agricultural output.

So how do we leverage that of making sure we can get more farm fresh foods to the table?

I think, you know, you could nitpick specific parts of it.

But as a whole, you know, I think they do a really good job of kind of trying to encompass every aspect of the health.

As we talk on this show and as lawmakers talk all the time about the high health care costs in Indiana, the poor health of Indiana, of Hoosiers, I almost said Indiana is good Lord.

the poor health of Hoosiers is a huge part of why our costs are higher.

So does this sort of thing is this where Indiana government needs to.

Be just going to do something meaningful?

Okay, we know we have a problem with obesity and the obesity drives heart trouble.

It drives pulmonary trouble and drives diabetes.

All of the things that feed into the cost of health care.

Why don't we, when we're trying to raise revenue, put taxes on candy and soda?

Why is it only poor people that shouldn't be having it?

Why isn't everybody in the community?

I mean, it would raise an awful lot of money.

And if we do take the position already with cigarets and with alcohol, that they are bad for your health, and so we're going to tax them.

We have now determined that these are bad for your health.

Let's tax them okay.

Let's raise the revenue.

Let's discourage people from using that.

And by the way when we're doing that the initiative they put it in public health.

They're going to cut again this year, which is exactly the wrong approach on the part of the legislature.

On the, the question about the Snap changes.

one of the things that that struck me from, from the coverage of this and hearing what Governor Brown said is some of the personal responsibility question is sometimes people don't have access to the kind of healthy foods that they should or even want to have.

There isn't anything here that seems to me pointing in that direction.

There are whole neighborhoods that don't have a grocery store, you know?

And what do you have?

You have a convenience store.

And the overlap between the snap population and food deserts is essential.

Yes, absolutely.

And so there's nothing in there for that.

And also, let's also remember that these are people who are struggling.

It's cheaper to buy junk food than it is to buy fruit or to, you know, buy something else.

And I do find it intriguing that I'll be curious how the definitions work out, because, you know, I might be addicted to zero sugar Pepsi.

My husband drinks this tea that's loaded with sugar.

So which one's better?

You know which one would be allowed?

Which one wouldn't?

You know.

There's so many inconsistencies when we talk about these things.

I mean, you pointed one out a moment ago.

Why not?

If this is so bad for society and we're so eager as a state to become healthier and reduce our overall costs, why not tax it?

Another inconsistency certainly would be weight loss medications, which a little local company based, not right down the street went up 16% just yesterday.

in the single day.

Not that I'm watching that closely, but yeah, Lilly and other makers of weight loss medications, which is now shown to be tremendously effective in controlling blood pressure, blood sugar levels and other.

Sorts of things.

Even curing diabetes and.

Curing diabetes at a time when you see the federal government rolling back and constricting, coverage for those things, in terms of taking them off the lists of medications for which people who don't have the means through private insurance or self-pay to obtain those.

So if you're serious, I guess, about dealing with the problem, you talk about the pound of prevention.

You know that.

Yeah, I would pay a prevention the pound of cure.

Well, it seems to me there is an example if you want to be consistent, because we're kind of picking and choosing right now, it seems right.

That, hey, we could help close that budget shortfall by raising the tax on candy and so to speak.

You know, I mean.

All right, the Senate gave its final stamp of approval to a major property tax reform package this week, sending the measure to the governor who signed it into law hours later.

The headline from Republican Senator Travis Holdman; Property Tax Relief for most homeowners, Two thirds of homeowners in 2026 will receive a bill less than they received in 2025.

Beginning next year, homeowners will receive a credit on their property tax bill of 10% of the bill, up to $300.

Those age 65 and older and disabled veterans would receive additional credits of 150 and $250, respectively.

The measure is expected to cost local governments up to $1.8 billion over just the next three years.

Republicans answer to that is new local income tax options.

But Democratic Senator Greg Taylor says local officials aren't going to raise income taxes.

You mark my words, you're going to cut services.

You think we got road problems?

You think we got access to government service problems here?

Just wait.

In a statement, governor Mike Braun called the bill historic property tax relief.

That makes the system fairer, more transparent and easier to understand.

Niki, we hear about the number of homeowners who will see lower bills.

And I suppose at this point, just not the bill, just not going up will matter to a lot of people.

Will this satisfy enough Hoosiers to make it worth it?

Well, so you're talking about will it satisfy the extremely vocal segment?

Who?

Well, let's be honest, they want to get rid of property taxes altogether.

It's never going to satisfy them.

I think it's a significant amount.

I think we overuse the word historic.

I've certainly been here when we gave larger percentage increases, when we've redone property tax systems before.

You've been through the like 2 or 3.

Right?

I brought them.

So you know it is going to help some people.

It really is.

Now whether it's going to conversely increase income taxes, I think we'll have to wait and see, because those are very hard decisions to make.

As we can see with the state budget, they don't want to vote for a tax increase.

They don't want to vote for a cigaret tax increase, which the polling tells you is the one that people are okay with.

So we'll see if locals actually end up going there or not.

But that that is a legit fear.

Jon, I mean, to Greg Taylor's point, are local officials going to go out and raise taxes on Hoosiers?

There will be a reluctance.

I mean, the message is clear.

It doesn't matter where you are in the state, what part, where county, where you reside, which party you affiliate with.

People recognize that people don't like to pay taxes.

They don't want to see a tax increase.

and there will be a reluctance now, will the need, the absolute need for police services, for school funding?

I mean, these are all different entities that would make these decisions.

It's not as if one entity in every county will make these decisions.

But when push comes to shove, the question is, will the the calls and the emails and the visits to government offices about, hey, the bottom of my my car's here, but the bottom the you know, the suspension of my car is backed up the street with the in that pothole or other sorts of things.

When do those complaints offset the concern about tax increases.

And so this may take several I don't know that will really and I know it's cliche to say time will tell, but we won't really know.

how this plays out in the for this biennium.

Probably this is a longer term issue.

Income tax stuff doesn't really go into 2028, right?

Yeah.

Right.

I mean it at the end of the day was a lot of this bill really about state lawmakers wanting to shift the pressure onto local lawmakers?

Yeah, I mean, I've I've said since the beginning, I think it really does come down to who wants to be the boogeyman, who wants to be the bad guy.

And this allows state lawmakers to with a straight face, saying, we offered you guys relief on our end that we did.

And then we also did cap, you know, the amount that local income taxes can rise.

But, I don't agree with Senator Taylor on much, but I think he had a good point of if you're the Republican Party and you own 70% of the state or the local governments, the head of them around the state, you know, that first election after some of these local income taxes either go up or some people will get taxed for the first time with local income taxes.

How will that impact the statewide races?

or at that local government level will be interesting to see.

Or if they don't go up, if if local officials don't raise taxes and instead cut services, where does the blame fall?

Well, I think it's depends on who's speaking.

The locals are going to blame the legislature.

The legislature is going to say you had an option.

Frankly, we're never going to play well at that remains message.

Whoever's Evers message is more effective.

Than, I suppose, whoever's at the ballot box first.

That's first.

Probably.

But you're never going to have any meaningful I mean, this is not historic, or at 300 makes a difference for three years to some people.

But, you know, it's more relevant in 1825 than 2025, $300 a year.

But you're never going to have meaningful, property tax reform when you have 2300 units of government in this state who can raise revenue.

I mean, it's crazy.

And when you, you know, when you see Diego and, and, Beckwith going and buying $90,000 cars, you have a thousand trustees out there, or they provided transportation to?

You have Randolph County that has what, a thousand, two thousand, three thousand students, and they have five school districts.

I mean, it is absolutely crazy.

You're going to have to deal with that if you're ever going to have meaningful property tax reform.

Cases, have the reserves.

Will be.

Which is which.

So they are they will be giving at the office as well.

Probably.

Lawmakers had a really difficult time crafting the property tax bill.

The only thing I can think of that would be harder is forcing local government consolidation at the statehouse.

Well, you know what?

It needs to be done.

All right.

The ACLU of Indiana sued the Trump administration this week for revoking visas of seven international students studying at universities in Indiana.

Indiana Public Broadcasting Zak Cassel reports two of the students are on track to graduate in May, and according to the ACLU, all plaintiffs are in good standing with their schools.

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration violated the Fifth Amendment due process rights of the international students when it canceled their student visas.

The students study at Purdue, Notre Dame and Indiana University Indianapolis.

They're citizens of China and Nigeria.

The lawsuit asks the court to reinstate the students visas and to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent them from being detained.

Almost 1200 students at more than 180 schools across the country have recently lost visas, according to the news site.

Inside the Higher Ed.

ACLU chapters in Michigan, Montana and New Hampshire have also filed lawsuits contesting the visa revocations.

Jon Schwantes if you were an international student, why would you want to study in the U.S right now?

Well, I understand, I presume, why these people came several years ago because at that point, as it had been for a century or more, this is the beacon for higher education.

The American higher education system is the envy of the world.

it just has been there.

Well, let's stipulate.

Yeah.

Full stop.

And the other thing, you look at a lot of the international students who come here, not only do they acquire the skills, but they acquire the relationships.

Even if they move back, they're able to engage in a global, in global global commerce and the global exchange of ideas and scientific research, or stay here, which certainly benefits, many of our communities.

The Purdue press.

Fast forward to now.

Why would you do it now?

Yeah, I'll pass to somebody else.

yeah.

It's still probably better.

Even at its worst.

It's probably better than a lot of places.

So tell that to somebody who wanted to graduate.

May.

it's worth noting the temporary restraining order that the ACLU of Indiana requested was denied by a judge yesterday.

So the ACLU has will determine what its next steps are.

but Niki, I mean, this extends even further to things like, we've seen international travel into the United States plummet in recent weeks.

we've seen, a road travel from Canada in the US plummet in recent weeks.

Is Indiana or is Indiana and the United States about to have a tourism problem?

Yeah, maybe.

it just depends.

You know, where we're seeing this big fight, you know, go on.

There was an issue in Florida just yesterday with someone who was just going in and out of the state for work, and they were born there.

They had a birth certificate, and they were arrested and put in jail for almost a whole day before they got let go.

And so this is about way more than just students.

And so we're seeing it play out in every segment of society.

It's about the rule of law, which is something that Donald Trump doesn't believe in.

We either have due process under the system, which is what has been the hallmark of our democracy since its inception.

Or we have a totalitarian state, which is what he's doing.

He thinks he can unilaterally take issue with anybody that he doesn't like and then summarily deport them or revoke their visa or do or prevent them from entering government buildings.

I mean, how long did it take Hitler to consolidate power?

Okay, he's in almost to his hundredth day.

You can laugh all you want, but he is disregarding the court orders.

He is.

He has no sense of the separation of powers, and he has no respect for the rule of law.

And that's going to come to a real head.

I know you talk about cream courthouse.

You talk, you talk about uncertainty.

And I think this is another area where there's a lot of uncertainty.

Absolutely.

Yes.

That's that's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Chris Mitchum, Jon Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcasts and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana Week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber Working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.