The U.S. House passes a massive bill with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

A consumer agency recommends against closing coal plants.

Plus more efforts to reduce absenteeism in schools.

And more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending May 23rd, 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, more than 600,000 Hoosiers would likely lose access to some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits under the massive federal bill approved by U.S. House Republicans and Gleaners, Food Bank of Indiana is sounding the alarm about the legislation's impact.

The federal bill shifts 25% of the cost of SNAP on the states for Indiana.

That means taking on more than $350 million, something Gleaners CEO Fred Glass says the state budget simply cannot support.

I think this proposed legislation would be a needless, self-inflicted humanitarian economic disaster, not only for Indiana, for the entire country.

Glass says as hunger worsens, crime rates and health care costs go up.

And he says SNAP is an economic engine.

Study after study has shown that for every dollar of SNAP, that's that's that's used to purchase, food, it creates almost $2 worth of other economic activity.

Glass says he hopes federal lawmakers will step back from the abyss as debate over the legislation moves to the Senate.

Is cutting SNAP the right way to pay for tax cuts?

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

Democrat Lara Beck.

Republican Whitley Yates.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana lawmakers.

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

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Whitley, I mean, there's no way the state can possibly pay for 25% of SNAP.

They shouldn't be expected to in that sense.

So he's essentially cutting the program then by that much.

For Hoosiers a good idea?

No, I don't.

But you also have to look at this current administration and what they walked into.

They walked into a $2.5 billion expected deficit.

And that's billion with a B.

So saying that we have $1 million shortfall with an M is not something that they're not up to the task in doing.

And they have been making steps when it comes to SNAP about reducing how much and what the SNAP aid can be spent on.

So it's not necessarily that the administration isn't up to the task is that they shouldn't have.

No.

Right.

And that the sustainability of SNAP really needs to fall in the federal government's hands.

And a sustainable program needs to happen where the Senate is funding the Lisa Larson the laws, specifically in food deserts.

So as this debate over the massive federal package moves now to the Senate, do you think the Senate looks at SNAP and goes, maybe that's a cut we shouldn't make?

Well, I would hope so.

I mean, but I think we have to back up and look at how do we how we got here.

Republic.

And I think it's okay that people go hungry so billionaires can get tax cuts.

And the wealthiest among us.

You're smiling a little bit at that.

but they do.

And I think that's the unfortunate part at the federal level and in Congress particularly, I think it's what I think Fred Glass did this last week is really raising an important alarm, just about how vital these programs are.

And we also are sitting on the heels of a week when the Make America Healthy report comes out about how additives in food are making people unhealthy.

Well, what are people who will be limited in terms of what they can afford for their for food?

What are they going to eat?

They're going to eat processed food that's going to make them sicker.

If they have enough food to begin with.

So I think these are the consequences of elections, especially at the federal level.

And I think it is really going to impact Indiana.

And unfortunately, this is all about giving tax cuts to people who make a heck of a lot more money then all of a sudden at this table.

To be fair, Republicans did expand SNAP during Covid, and that was a supermajority Republican House and Senate in the state of Indiana to expand SNAP benefits during a time where it was needed.

And since its expansion, it hasn't been size down.

So I would say this, though, I mean, the Republicans in Congress, the Indiana representatives in Congress are voting for these, these tax cuts for people who are incredibly wealthy, taking money away from people who need that money, who need that food the most.

And so where in the Republican Party is there, work that's being done to educate them about how this is going to impact their constituents and the rest of, the party.

To that end?

And do you think that this debate shifts as it advances through Congress?

I think it will.

And I do think people need to know, at least here in Indiana, you know, the SNAP eligibility is really low, guys.

We're talking about very poor people who can't feed themselves and their children.

And so.

And that benefits that.

Great.

You know they're not.

And so I mean I think I looked up like a family of four can make like I don't know, $2,600 a month.

So you know, break that down by two, basically two wage earners.

this isn't Medicaid where we did the expansion and these are more moderate income.

These are low income Hoosiers who desperately need help and food.

And and we're I mean, that's going to be a massive cut if it happens, Jon, I mean, I think a lot of times when we hear about the government maybe scaling back what it's doing in something like SNAP, you hear, well, now it's time for the private sector or the philanthropic sector to step up.

But Fred pointed out in the interview that, combined, Indiana's 11 food banks generated about 108 million meals last year, and this SNAP cut would mean the loss of about 133 million meals.

So it was expecting the the private philanthropic sector to step up, even feasible.

It's a great thought, but I don't think it's a practical thought.

there's some things that the private sector can't do.

Believe it or not, I know that'll be a shock to people.

Government is needed in certain important areas, such as the distribution of and creation and maintenance of a safety net for society or big scale research projects.

I mean, keep in mind, the federal government is funny things on a level that surpass that would make even, you know, Bill gates, you know, Cower or Warren Buffet.

These are these are big ticket items.

And it's not just the immediate impact.

I think that will will.

This is going to take a while to shake out.

If you look, for instance, of some of the ripple effects right now, if you are an able bodied adult, you can get SNAP benefits.

Even if you don't meet the work requirement.

If you're a parent or guardian of somebody under the age of 18.

Under the House version, that would drop to seven year old individuals.

So we already have.

I think everybody would agree.

A child care crisis in the state, if not this nation.

We know the state.

So let's speak to that.

That I can't see how that does anything other than exacerbate that problem.

so in getting trying to get people back to work or make them, I mean, you create additional burdens on on our child already strained childcare system.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is, should the federal government cut SNAP benefits to help pay for tax cuts?

A yes or b no.

Last week we asked you whether Attorney General Todd Rokita was right to threaten Notre Dame over its purported diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

10% of you say yes, 90% say no.

I think that was just an Delaney pressing know over and over and over again.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to wfie.org/wire and look for the poll.

Well, Medicaid experts say a federal proposal could make any progress on Indiana's new work reporting requirement for the Healthy Indiana Plan or Hipp, a waste of time and resources.

The federal work reporting requirement for Medicaid expansion programs wouldn't allow states to deviate from the federal policy if it passes.

Indiana lawmakers added 12 exceptions to the new hip work reporting requirement.

But if federal lawmakers pass their proposal, Indiana and other states would be required to implement the policy with the exceptions.

Federal lawmakers lay out they would also have to implement the requirements no later than the end of 2026.

Leo Keogh is a research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.

He says the federal proposal includes some exceptions that overlap with Indiana's law, but may not go as far.

And some exceptions weren't included at all in the federal proposal.

We're no longer in the world of states getting to decide, how they want to run their own programs, right?

This becomes more of a top down, environment.

Cuomo says Indiana can move forward with its plan, but it may be more practical to wait.

It would not make sense to invest a whole lot of money to build a system which, you know, is no longer going to be matching the federal requirements that are about to come online.

Cuomo says the federal proposal includes a number of changes to Medicaid and broader health care policy that threaten people's coverage, which he says will lead to more medical debt and worse health outcomes.

Lara is a state that just spent an entire legislative session trying to figure out some Medicaid changes.

How disruptive with the federal Medicaid cuts be?

Well, I think it would be massively destructive, not destructive as well.

I would say disruptive and destructive.

because what it does is it takes away the flexibility for states to tailor their programs to meet the needs of the specific state.

And what I think is really concerning is you've got 1.8 million people in Indiana on Medicaid, on Medicaid, and this puts them in somewhat of a limbo state.

But again, we're going back to the reason why you're cutting Medicaid and you're imposing these these cuts to Medicaid is because you're basically doing reverse Robin Hood.

You're taking from the poor.

So you can give to the top 1 to 2% and again, that's what's going to really impact people's lives on a daily practical basis.

And I think it's going to have a ripple effect across the and across the entire state, rural health care and in a whole bunch of different areas.

What I find always very frustrating is that Republicans always rail against the federal government coming in and putting in these regulations, but this is what they're doing right now, and it's going to hurt our state and it's going to cause major, major issues.

Obviously, Indiana Republicans, at the state level, are plenty of fans of of work reporting requirements for Medicaid.

But do you think there's a little bit of annoyance that, hey, we just did this whole thing, we figured out this whole plan, and now you're maybe making all of that work irrelevant.

Do you think there's at least a little bit of annoyance with that?

I definitely think that it does seem counterintuitive to work so hard on something and then not be in alignment with federal standards, but Indiana seems to have a way of cultivating and creating their own Medicaid programs that they're already funding that kind of circumvents what the federal government is doing.

And we've been able to do that at a success rate as long as Republicans have been in positions of power in the state House.

And I don't think that that will change.

They may have to do some tweaks, post what the feds decide.

But all in all, I think that our Medicaid is going to be fine.

She talked about the ripple effects of changes to Medicaid and potential cuts to Medicaid.

Do you think the average person who isn't on Medicaid understands that people losing their health care coverage through Medicaid will affect them, too?

You know, I don't know, we live in a society where we're all sort of have our heads buried in the sand, and we don't really understand that how these issues play until one of our relatives, or is affected or we are affected directly.

So maybe not.

and that is that's one of the problems we face as a society.

We don't think holistically.

but to the point, I wouldn't hold out hope necessarily that Indiana can, as she put it, circumvent, federal statute because all of these waivers keep in mind, even when we were circumventing, went through a federal agency that had to approve them, that overseas initially, you know, services provided by Medicaid and Medicare, which is a subunit of the FDA.

And, yes, Indiana, certainly, to your point, has been a leader with creating programs that were innovative and was first to the gate in many cases with programs that, other states followed.

But keep in mind, in some of those instances, let's talk about the first Trump administration, when we were able to secure some waivers.

The head of the FDA and the head of the agency I just referred to that oversees, Medicaid and Medicare and grants, considers these requests for waivers and grants them were both residents of Carmel, Indiana, and very close to the administration at the state House at that time.

I don't think, the that Doctor Oz who is they know that the agency that his name I won't bore you with.

And then, RFK Jr probably have as much invested in answering the phone from Indiana.

in terms of now Indiana's path forward.

Do you.

If you're a, you know, to say here and stuff like that, do you just go.

We can't pay attention to that.

We're going to forge ahead with what we've got and move ahead.

So I mean, first of all, the bill isn't passed yet.

It's still going to go through the Senate.

There's probably going to have to be rulemaking by the federal government on what counts as an exemption and things like that.

And I think that's the one area that might be different for Indiana's is the exceptions we gave to that work requirement versus maybe what the federal government would give.

But yeah, I mean, just do your work and and and get it in there and then see at the end what doesn't match.

But I would think it'd be far easier to just tweak at the end than just sit here and do nothing for months and months while you're waiting.

Two consumer advocates are split on Duke Energy's proposal to close the Cayuga coal plant.

But Indiana Public Broadcasting's Rebecca Thiele reports.

They both say a new $3 billion natural gas plant isn't the right thing for Duke's customers.

Duke energy says it needs more power to serve thousands of new residential customers.

And new and.

Expanding businesses in the state.

While Citizens Action Coalition agrees Duke should retire its Cayuga coal plant, it would rather see it replaced with renewable sources, as well as things like customer owned solar panels and incentives for customers who use less energy when demand is high.

Here's Cassie's program director, Ben Inskeep.

So there's all sorts of solutions that together can form a very reliable and affordable portfolio that could replace this coal fired power plant in a way that's going to be both good for the environment and good for ratepayers.

But the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer counselor says Duke should keep the Cayuga coal plant running.

President Donald Trump and Governor Mike Braun have shown support for the coal industry, which could bring operating costs down.

Niki Kelly This is something that came up during the gubernatorial campaign last year.

So would you expect the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, which is the one who gets to say yes or no to this request?

Do you expect to see them to push back against these coal plant requirements?

I really do.

I mean, not only are we seeing, you know, the governor, Mike Braun, push back on it and trying to, you know, be a little more vocal on it.

There were definitely steps in the legislature to try to make sure that the IAC knows for sure that they can say no to these things, and that they can try to suggest other alternatives.

I mean, the fact that you have the SEC and CAC together on this is pretty fascinating.

For different reasons in some cases, yeah.

So I do expect the IOC to push back.

I don't know if it'll be a complete rejection, but maybe they can find some middle ground somewhere.

Yeah.

I mean is this going to be the start of maybe a trend of the IAC starting to say no to some of these?

I think that's certainly if you read the room at the state House, that's what the to Niki's point, that's what the General Assembly wanted to occur, that there would be pushback under the notion or, you know, ostensibly because you don't want to have any frailty or fragility in, in the grid, in the system.

And so on the side of abundance of energy.

And I guess that's one way to look at it.

But it does it does sort of change the landscape of, well, this is a theme today.

When does government know best?

When does the private sector know best?

and I guess that all kind of gets scrambled as well.

Well, I mean, you know, we have this whole debate, this last session about the high, you know, property tax rates being the thing that consumers, you know, that that Hoosiers and constituents were talking about, rightfully so.

But people have also been talking a lot about the rising cost of utilities that we haven't seen lawmakers nearly as eager to dive in on.

Is that sort of the role that you see the state administrative side starting to play a role in?

I do, because a lot of people have been basically raising alarm about the cost of their utility bill.

There's threads and threads on Facebook about the increasing costs.

Now, whether you're in the city and you're using a yes or you're out using Duke Energy.

Everyone has experiences and you're also seeing more advocate groups pop up like you have the American Coalition for Conservative Energy that now has a chapter here, and you're seeing all of these conservative and Republican right leaning energy companies and organizations really advocating for energy to be used in a way that is environmentally friendly and fiscally responsible in our pockets.

Are you is there any concern at all that the reason they'll be doing this is not so much thinking about lowering costs for consumers, but more about what?

We're just going to keep coal going because that's the thing we need to do.

Well, I think that's I mean, I think that's part of the intent is to keep coal going, right?

I mean, I think Donald Trump has said, you know, we're bringing back coal, we're bringing back manufacturing, we're doing all of this.

So I think that sort of is a message that they can say, look to, to point to that.

I think from a broader perspective, and as we talk about, you know, having conversations around tables with, with elected officials and others is this is really not a time to retreat to our corners, because we have major energy needs coming up.

I mean, there are 30 data centers already in line that are coming into Indiana, and we're going to need to have the power for those.

and we already know that Duke is saying, look, we've got to have more power.

We've got more resources.

So I just don't feel like this is a time for people to either kick the can down the road or, as you said, sort of go to your stick your head in the sand and your respective with your respective tribe.

This is really a time to have some key conversations.

I don't know if that's going to happen because of the politics of the moment.

but we're going to be paying for it down the road because we are going to have these data centers coming online.

Or not coming.

Not as the case may be.

It was a.

Call for a.

Moratorium.

Right?

Yeah.

So, I mean, that could happen too.

All right.

Indiana lawmakers have been pushing to improve school attendance after absenteeism surged during the pandemic.

From his education desk, Dylan Pierce McCoy reports that schools will soon be required to provide more intervention and support when middle and high schoolers have lots of unexcused absences.

A new Indiana law requires schools to intervene when seventh through 12th grade students miss.

Five days without an excuse.

Schools must hold meetings with parents and create attendance plans.

Those attendance plans can include wraparound services and referrals for outside treatment, such as.

Counseling, and they can include.

A description of the disciplinary action the school may take if the student does not meet the attendance requirements.

State rep Bob Benning is the chair of the House Education Committee.

I believe it's very positive in terms of supporting schools and really getting the outcomes we want.

The law mirrors requirements the legislature approved last year for intervention to support students in elementary grades.

Jon, is this the right approach to address chronic absenteeism?

I think we can look to some proof of performance as it relates to elementary schools, which were already operating to a state.

This version of the bill basically.

Right.

And now this adds middle school and high school.

So and you look overall at the rates, it has improved.

I mean, now granted, the the worst the high water or low water mark, depending on how you want to look at it, was the height of Covid.

We're better than that now thankfully.

But I think the other thing that may be positive, even though there is an effort here to involve prosecutors potentially and get them involved, I don't think this is punitive or designed to be punitive at all.

In fact, you know, it's the old carrot.

It seems that it seems like the punitive side of it, if there is one, is that it's like.

The very and and that parents and care and guardians, not necessarily students, because there were there was some talk when this issue first arose.

Let's let extracurriculars be the hammer that hangs over people.

And if you can't play football, you can't play basketball, you can't be part of club X, Y, or Z.

And for a lot of students, if you want kids to complete an education and you've taken away the reasons that many of them show up in the morning in the first place, which is the clubs, the activities, the extracurriculars, the sport, I think there was recognition that that would not quite, be the smart thing to do.

It's interesting to me because when we started talking about, like on this show about the absenteeism, issue a couple of years ago, you know, a lot of people had pointed out that the reasons a kid might be chronically absent when they're in elementary school might be very different from when they're in high school, because you're talking about it's really the parents when you're that young.

But when you're a little older, sometimes the parents don't even realize the kid's not going to school right away.

But it seems that right now, lawmakers want to, at least initially, take the same approach to both those populations.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does.

And I think it's right to get these parents in the room and have these conversations early.

Look, I know just anecdotally from fin friends and family, you know, a lot of this is on the parents guys.

They just need to be tougher.

You know, just because your kids comes and says, I have a headache doesn't mean they get to stay home or or I don't know, I know a million parents who, despite the fact that they have an established spring break, you know, still take them out for, you know, different vacations.

I mean, so if anything, it just gets the conversation rolling and makes parents really have to justify, in a sense, why some of these absences are happening.

Is that one of the best parts of this approach is just kind of having that conversation.

I was just thinking, unless you know your Lara Beck, and you read the school calendar wrong and you book the vacation for the wrong week?

So that has happened before.

That has happened before.

And boy, it was it was a rough reentry.

yeah.

I mean, look, I think we learned during the pandemic that, not being in school, that being in school for kids is really important for them.

And there's also the social emotional learning component of it as well.

Right?

Like there's the education part of it, but there's also the socialization piece.

And I think we're seeing kids, I'm the parent of a high schooler, but I think we're seeing kids who are even a little more immature because they missed some of those key development years of being with their peers in school.

So there's real benefit to that.

and yeah, I do I think it's on the parents.

I mean, if your kid's not getting to school, then install live 360 and you can click it and say, why aren't you in school?

Right.

So there's that involvement as well.

All right.

Finally, it's that time of year, the Greatest Spectacle in Racing, the 109th running of the Indianapolis 500.

Let's, we're getting picks from everybody.

Lara, we'll start with you.

Who's your pick to win at the Motor Speedway this week?

I'm going to go with Pato Award.

He, that's one of my favorites.

So that's him.

Who's your.

Well, I'm going to go with Pato to.

That's that's totally fair variance Jon Hart overhead.

Helio Castroneves he just turned 50.

What a great birthday present.

That would be something.

That would be something Niki.

Okay, so we saw Rena speak at the Astro party last night and he's just delightful.

So I'm rooting for him.

But I mean, it's got to be Alex Pillow.

So.

I.

Clearly know.

Absolutely.

There's people who watch this and heard me make these picks before.

I know zero about racing.

So I pick for what I think would be the most fun storyline.

We've heard a couple here, but I think it's never been done before.

I think Josef Newgarden, winning his third in a row and doing it from the last row, would be the best story.

So that's the one.

I don't think he's going to win, but I'm that's what I'm rooting for.

This weekend, meanwhile, is the still between having the 500 and a Pacers Knicks playoff game on the same day.

Is Indianapolis about to spontaneously, you know, explode?

Absolutely.

We're actually viral on TikTok.

If you guys didn't know right now for everything happening in the city.

At the same time, I need to warn everyone.

Indianapolis is not the city to play in an hour.

Per capita murder rate.

You don't want to come here and play around because people are more than likely carrying.

We are a constitutional carry state.

Do not play Knicks fans.

Don't start now.

Will be nice.

You take your L's and you leave.

Don't forget we've been there, done that t shirt because we did it before an ad in a presidential visit.

The trifecta.

We do this better.

We can do about it.

That's true.

That is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Lara Beck.

Republican Whitley Yates.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers.

and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews, podcast 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.