Jennifer McCormick's tax relief proposal.

Changes to the high school diploma redesign.

Plus lieutenant governor candidates debate.

And more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending August 16th, 2024.

Indiana Weekend Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

This week, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick unveiled a plan that she says aims to provide relief to Hoosiers struggling with sharp spikes in their property tax bills.

The $600 million proposal uses several measures offered by Republicans and Democrats in the legislature.

The biggest impact would come from increasing the exemptions Hoosiers can take on their income taxes.

McCormick's plan would raise it from $1,000 to 2500.

Since our wages aren't moving and our costs are going up, that there was a way for Hoosiers to capture more dollars to help offset what is happening with property taxes.

That change would cost the state $333 million a year in revenue, and local governments 173 million.

McCormick says one of her goals was to minimize the impact on local government budgets.

We've heard from so many of our local communities that they're tight.

They can't afford to take a lot of hits.

Another part of the plan would provide homeowners with a tax credit if their property tax bill increases by 10% or more in a year.

Is Jennifer McCormick's tax plan workable?

It's the first question for our Indiana we can review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Chris Mitchem.

Ebony Chappel, market director for Free Press Indiana.

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

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

Chris, I asked the same question when Braun released his tax plan a few weeks ago.

So is this a workable plan?

Yeah, I mean, it sounds great on paper, right?

Trying to minimize the impact on local governments, really by kind of tweaking the the local income tax.

I think that's a that's a bright idea.

but ultimately, you know, the whole discussion around property taxes is great for, you know, been used like this in the legislature because we've come to conclude that there's tough to find a win win scenario.

You're going to have to get the money from somewhere, right?

So ultimately, you know, you have these two plans, but it's really going to come down to the legislature.

Right.

And what they decide to do on a statewide level to kind of try to address this issue.

And, you know, I know they're doing the, the state and Local Income and Review Tax Board right now, which is a legislatively created committee where people will go and likely make recommendations by the end of the year.

So I think those are the ones that we really have to be paying attention to.

and I think even Jennifer McCormick acknowledged that using those proposals from the legislature granted, I think half of them came from Democrat bills, which probably wouldn't see the light of the day in the statehouse.

But, with the fiscal numbers already there, you know, her plan certainly is more fleshed out than bronze, but I think it has the same amount of concerns.

When you talk about dipping into the reserve, you're talking about still having a pretty sizable impact on local governments.

So while there, I think there's more, specifics.

in her plan, I think, you know, ultimately the legislature is going to be the the decider here.

We to that point that this is not an isolated conversation.

The reason Mike Brown is talking about the reason Jennifer McCormick are talking about property taxes is because Hoosiers are talking about property taxes, and lawmakers are talking about property taxes.

Is this generally the approach, though, where you are trying to address people losing so much money with these sharp spikes in property taxes by not actually touching the property tax system itself, all that much?

I think it is, and I think it's a workable solution.

I mean, there are 2300 units of local government that rely on property tax revenue to exist for, you know, from your libraries, your police department, your fire departments to your schools.

So you don't want to hit them so hard that it that it causes a contraction in services or availabilities or courses being offered or anything like that.

And I think the, the unique part of her plan, unlike Mike Braun's plan, is that she's using some state dollars to, to fill that back, shortfall.

And I think that's the approach that's going to have to work because local governments can't.

I mean, everybody's happy that the values of their houses have gone up.

Okay.

That's a good thing.

But when you have people on fixed incomes and those property taxes go up too high, they can't afford to maintain their residence in that higher priced, house.

So we need to do something as a state to address that.

And state funds are going to have to be a part of that, remedy.

And I think that this is the first time that somebody has come forward with a plan which does use some state revenue to help address that problem.

Yeah.

Of a roughly $600 million impact, which was fleshed out in the fiscal notes that were already done for these bills that had been offered in previous sessions, 173 million would be on local governments collectively, and then everything else would be on the back of the state revenue.

That's still a big chunk of money heading into a budget session, where we all believe that the budget's going to be a lot tighter than it has been for years.

It is.

But you also got to remember, for the past two years, Republicans have been pushing at least some have been pushing a complete state income tax elimination, or at least further reducing it as they have been.

So there's clearly discussions and appetite for reducing income taxes, which this does through increased deductions.

I mean, they could definitely sell.

Hey look, we reduced your income taxes so you can, you know, we can help you remove these spikes of your property taxes.

So that's an option.

I want to ask about that part of this plan because her proposal is sort of tax relief to address property tax spikes by not really touching property tax spikes.

It would if it goes up by 10%.

Now you get a tax credit that's not on your property tax bill.

That's on your when you file your taxes, increase deductions.

Again, when you file your taxes.

So much of this is is the politics versus the policy and selling to people.

We are trying to help you are people going if a plan even like this were to go into effect?

Are people going to understand, well, my property tax bill is still going to go through the roof, but I'm going to get more money over here, as you know, sort of to balance it out.

Are people going to be okay with that?

I think, like most other things, it comes down to the way that it's communicated.

So I think it's going to be on, the back of whoever is in charge of implementing this plan, should it move further to make sure that it's communicated to people effectively?

I think that most people would feel comfortable with that, as long as they know that they're getting some relief, because the rate that we're going right now is just not sustainable for most people.

I know that here in Indiana, we had the privilege and the benefit of having one of the more affordable, costs of living in the nation.

But housing is still one of the things that is really putting a pinch on your everyday Hoosier.

So as long as there's some sort of relief, I think most people would feel pleased, at least on some level, would let that.

Last thing out.

Last thing I would add to your point, you know, in reality, the idea of having upwards of $500 million coming out of state revenues per year, it's just a nonstarter in the legislature right now with the way that it's made.

you know, yes, we have we have.

So so we're not going to cut taxes then.

The income tax, I mean.

That's you that's.

The revenue.

The state revenues too, right?

Well, I mean, I think we've seen the discussion increasingly moving away from an income, and that's true.

But I'm just saying they've been discussing cutting state taxes for two years.

This is the way to do it.

That provides property tax relief.

All right.

What's time like time now for fewer feedback each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is does addressing property tax bills need to be the top priority for the governor and lawmakers in 2025?

A yes or b no?

Last week, we asked you whether Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett should resign over how his administration handled sexual harassment allegations against a top aide.

41% of you say yes, 59% say no.

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

The Indiana Department of Education unveiled the second draft of its high school diploma overhaul this week.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Kirsten Adair reports.

The new proposal includes one base diploma that more closely resembles the current core 40.

The first draft included the GPS and GPS plus diplomas, which many school officials said were too confusing and not rigorous enough.

Now, both those diplomas are gone.

The idea we introduced a new proposal Wednesday that includes just one diploma that is more similar to the current core 40.

The new diploma allows students to take various math, English and science courses to complete those required areas.

Students can also choose to achieve seals or pathways for enrollment, enlistment, or employment on top of the base diploma.

Many educators say they like this proposal better, but Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner says there could still be changes.

My red pen is still out.

So if if we need to make a adjustments, we'll do that.

There will be a second public comment period for this new proposal.

Ann DeLaney.

Is this the right course correction for this redesign?

Well, to the extent that it basically jettisoned the other ridiculous ideas they had after, to their credit, I, you and Purdue stood up and said, you can do these diplomas.

We're just not admitting them.

You know, it is it is the classic example of buying the wedding dress before the engagement is even announced.

They don't have counselors for these programs.

They're trying to move kids into vocational and other trainings so they don't have internships lined up, but they have the diploma out there.

Okay, terrific.

They've got to go and not affect the ability of students who are college bound to get into institutions like IU and Purdue.

At the same time, they have to put the money and the resources into making the coursework and opportunities available to the students in vocational tracks, the diploma is less important.

I mean, we've got to get those.

We've got to get those opportunities there for the students to learn those things and go a different way without jeopardizing the futures of students who want to go to college.

The idea that when you started out with this, their first proposal, that you would be taking vocational courses if you were going to go to Purdue and be an engineer, it's ridiculous.

It feels like so often in government, not just state government, but all levels of government, regardless of party, it feels like increasingly it's here's our idea, oh, you don't like it too bad we're going to shove it.

Done.

Why did they didn't talk about doing.

Well but here.

Isn't this exactly how the system is supposed to work?

Here's an idea.

Oh, you hated it.

Here's a very different idea.

Isn't this exactly the way it should work?

Yeah, and I think a lot of credit has to go to them.

It's really rare when you come out with a proposal that gets support from both the House majority and the House minority leader, as this one did, as well.

And ultimately, they're they're not done right.

I know they've gotten a lot of other positive reaction from the higher universities and different folks like that.

But to, to Katie Jenner's point, there could be more improvements to be made to address different pathways or schools or whatever the name is now.

And I think.

yes.

Right now we're abandoning GPA.

That's right.

We're advancing GPA, GPA.

Yeah.

And ultimately it's not truly going to get fleshed out until we see how the state funds it, where the you know, where the incentives go.

Wouldn't it be better to talk to the institutions of higher learning first?

Yeah, early to putting it out.

So I think so I think that that would have been more ideal to have those conversations early on.

And that was a point that I made when we first started this conversation.

But I think now it is promising that there clearly has been some conversation had there's been some course correction.

and I think this will make people feel a lot more confident about the direction it's going.

But I hope that this is a lesson that those conversations should happen early on.

We shouldn't be making, decisions about the future of education without the people that literally leave that as part of the conversation from the beginning.

The point Chris just made in what Katie Jenner said in the story, they're not done.

More changes could be on the way.

But does it feel like this time we're pretty close to what that future diploma was going to look like?

Yeah.

I mean, to me, honestly, what what they produced this week kind of is similar to what we have now, but with this additional emphasis on work based learning, like right now, 70 some percent of Indian students get a Common Core diploma.

And they know getting that they're not going to college.

That's why they get the academic honors diploma.

And you know, and so now we're again going to have one baseline diploma.

And then again, if you want to go to college, you're going to get this enrollment seal.

You know.

And if you are more like I want to work, then you go for the employment seal.

And that also does seem easier to understand, which was a big problem with the GPS system.

Yeah.

It was like, what the heck am I getting?

What is it for this?

For your mind?

It undermined people's faith in the diploma itself.

Yeah.

Which is something that they've done consistently, whether it's with elections as they do, or the security of elections.

It just that's where you're exactly right.

They need to remember when they're dealing with something as fundamental is this, that all the stakeholders have ideas about this and have to have things that they need to see, and they should be talking to them before they pontificate.

All right.

Well, all three candidates for lieutenant governor at a debate Tuesday weren't shy about criticizing current Republican state government leadership.

Republican Micah Beckwith, Democrat Terry Goodin and Libertarian Tonya Hudson met at the state fair for a debate focused on rural and agricultural issues, from property taxes to water resources to rural economic development.

Goodin's message was the same it's been one party Republican control that has gotten Indiana into trouble.

We've had a nontransparent government, a.

Government that does not let folks know what's going on.

In our state.

So in other words, what we have is when we have fixes, we have Band-Aid fixes that don't work.

Hudson, the libertarian advocates for dramatically slashing the size and scope of government.

We need to roll back the rules and regulations, cut taxes.

Property taxes need to be abolished.

Republican Beckwith says the state's current economic development strategy must change to focus more on small towns.

We can expand broadband.

We can make sure that they have access to a global marketplace, and you're going to see not only farms and small businesses in these rural communities come back to life.

Indiana's lieutenant governor serves as the Secretary of Agriculture and oversees the Office of Community and Rural Affairs.

Niki Kelly there was a lot more attention than usual being paid to this particular, lieutenant governor debate.

Did it deliver on those higher expectations?

Maybe even sure, there was a lot more.

I mean, this is the first one that I didn't cover live in the last 20 years, but it's always well-attended.

It's always, you know, I.

Think the room was a little more packed this time than usual.

Yeah.

I mean, I saw some pictures that I remember not being able to get a seat before, but so I mean, but it was a good debate.

there was a little issue with the format.

it was confusing because, like, they went right out of the gate.

They asked a great property tax question.

I was like, yes, we're going to hear all three.

And they had me come back with the answer.

And then they moved on to another question.

And it was very confusing.

But they eventually got the way, not the way it was supposed to be.

They eventually started getting all of them on record, on key ag issues like property taxes and conservation.

And water resources.

Water resources.

So, I think I learned a lot from it, and I hope, I hope other voters definitely have a chance to review it.

Now because of Micah Beckwith, there has been a lot more attention paid to the lieutenant governor candidate this cycle than any cycle.

Certainly, I can remember in my time here, and because of the role of the lieutenant governor being the secretary of agriculture, heading, the office Community Rural affairs, these are exactly the sort of issues you should be asking lieutenant governor candidates, but they're also not the sort of issues that a lot of times we hear asked of even the gubernatorial candidates.

So is it a nice benefit to this extra attention on the league that voters are hearing more about these issues that maybe we don't hear often enough?

I think any time voters are more informed, it is a great thing.

if you look at some of our, voter turnout rates, they've been abysmal, over the past few cycles.

So I think we are in a period of people being more engaged, people wanting to pay more attention.

Now, whether that attention is coming on the back of something salacious or, negative, you know, I think, as long as we're drawing people's eyes and paying attention, particularly to rural issues, I think is extremely important because those, Hoosiers are often forgotten when we talk about some of the big ticket issues that are going on.

In terms of the issues themselves.

Do you see right now a lot of separation between the sort of things that Michael Beckwith is saying and Terry Goodin is saying?

I mean, Tonya Hudson definitely saying very different things, which you often expect very much the libertarian point of view.

So I appreciate that.

But do you see a lot of daylight between some of what Terry Goodin is saying and somewhat like a back with saying.

Yeah, I mean, when you have to be at a surface level like you do at debates, right?

You can't go point by point on your property tax, you know, proposal, for example.

So I think on the surface, right, the talking points are similar, especially when you talk about the rural areas with farmland and the homestead tax in particular.

Those are two issues that you have to talk about with those people.

And you can't get too specific.

But going back to your point on kind of the the attraction of this debate from a Republican standpoint, it was all about how Micah Beckwith was going to just react.

Right?

This was kind of his first true public facing.

Hey, I'm going to be your lieutenant governor.

And he really adopted that role as, under the label of trying to be a disruptor, right, of coming in and being like, hey, I'm going to defend the small town Hoosier that maybe doesn't get his voices heard.

So I think his performance actually probably subdued a lot of the concerns people had because he was throughout that, throughout that debate, kind of saying, you know, Brian and I and Brian's going to do great of leading this.

So I think for now, when it comes to this guy coming in and potentially trying to blow up a ticket and kind of going rogue for now, I think those have been subdued.

Thoughts were not on socially, I.

Agree, I agree with I agree with that point.

I agree with that point.

But you know, Micah Beckwith saying things like calling the iadc the shadow a shadow government.

Yeah, I mean, I think you've said that before.

Yeah.

So but I mean, they've been in control for the last 20 years.

If rural people have been ignored, if small towns are going down, it's on their watch.

Okay.

Where was Micah Beckwith?

Where was Mike Braun when this when this was all going on?

Okay.

It's it's their responsibility.

The fact that Terry, in pointing that out, it's not surprising at all.

And he is absolutely right.

That part of the problem is transparency.

The Supermajorities allow all these decisions to be made behind closed doors, and Republicans to lock ranks and not hear opposing views, okay, and not take into account opposing views.

And that gives us ridiculous situations like the, I know you're going to love this, the leap district where we know it's not going to get off the ground and we've wasted $100 million, and those kinds of things would not happen if you had an open democracy.

We don't have an open democracy in Indiana.

Sorry.

The the new swine barn.

Yeah, it's the Lake District, a county judge says a new Indiana law banning local governments from suing gun manufacturers and sellers cannot apply to an ongoing case involving the city of Gary.

Republican lawmakers passed the measure earlier this year in order to end that decades old lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed by the city of Gary in 1999, alleges that gunmakers and sellers contributed to the city's gun violence epidemic.

Republican state lawmakers tried to end the lawsuit once already, but when that attempt failed, they tried again this past session.

The law says only the state attorney general can bring suit against gun manufacturers and sellers.

In response, the firearm companies involved in the Gary suit asked a judge to dismiss the case.

But Lake County Judge John Sedia rejected their request.

City's ruling says using the new law to end the Gary lawsuit would violate years of vested rights and constitutional guarantees.

Yeah, that's right, Ebony lawmakers clearly have no trouble interfering in this ongoing lawsuit.

Should we look forward to them doing it again after this ruling?

I think that they will likely try it again.

I find that to be an unfortunate choice.

when you look at the way that cities like Gary, like Indianapolis, have been just brutalized by gun violence over the years, I think that it is unfortunate, then, that lawmakers will step in and say, oh, well, you know, let's take away a city's right to defend itself against these gun makers that do not care about what happens to these communities.

So I find it to be very unfortunate that they would even attempt to do so.

And, you know, I'm glad, you know, when I read the remarks from, Eddie Melton up in Gary, Hatcher up in Gary talking about we are so glad that the judge saw things in the way of the community, and them being able to make their own choices.

So yeah, that those are my thoughts on that.

obviously far from the end of this particular legal question.

This will almost certainly go to the Indiana Supreme Court.

So in terms of will lawmakers try to take another step to end this lawsuit?

I mean, I'm not really sure what they could do.

They already passed a law to eliminate it.

I mean, I think you have to wait and now let it go through the system.

And, you know, I don't know if it will be upheld or not.

The Supreme Court has allowed sort of retroactive lawsuits or things like this before.

For instance, there was a lawsuit about, Todd Rokita and an advisory opinion and an ethics advisory opinion.

You know, they won the lawsuit, they got access to that advisory opinion.

And just two years ago or one year ago, they put a new law that was retroactive, saying those are confidential.

And that lawsuit has now been dismissed.

So, I mean, they've certainly let laws like that be changed in the past, including one on how we use, you know, a long time ago on an execution protocols.

And that happened again with a retrospective law, you know, after a dispute was ongoing.

Yeah.

And I mean, the judge in this ruling points out that retroactive laws are not blanket, you know, unenforceable or are not allowed.

Right.

But he was pointing out that in this particular case, in this particular lawsuit, this particular.

Law on for 20.

25 years, 25 years.

Yeah.

To that end, I obviously know you disagree with the measure that the General Assembly passed.

I agree with Ebony.

I you know, the idea that the NRA controls Indiana is is absurd.

And I don't think the voters want that either, which is why, in part, I say we don't have a democracy here.

The legislature doesn't want to listen to what people in Indiana want.

On the question of freedom of choice on voucher bodies.

They don't want to listen to it about guns.

They don't even want to listen to it about restricting plastic bags.

Whatever they like, they think should be the law.

And that's what they're doing here.

And it ties the hands of communities.

And then they come up.

Then they come on with the ads in mayoral campaign saying, oh my goodness, there's violence in our cities.

So yeah, yeah.

Because should give guns out to kids as young as 13 and 14 years of age.

It it is.

To pass laws saying that everybody can have them.

So constitutional rights.

Yeah.

So yeah, I really think that what you're doing here on the legislative part is stepping on the toes of the judiciary.

We have separate and equal, units of government in this state, and it ought to be allowed to play out the way the law intended originally and have the lawsuit go forward.

From a policy standpoint, not on this particular lawsuit in this particular issue.

From a policy standpoint, is it good for the General Assembly to interfere with active, ongoing lawsuits?

in general, no.

And I think the General Assembly will tell you that, too.

Most of the time.

The talking point is, you know, there's an ongoing lawsuit and we're not going to get involved here.

That's what when they don't want to take a.

Position for sure.

But I think in this particular case.

It's the it's the local rule as best rule.

If we agree.

With the law, if we agree with the local policy.

But I think in this particular case, it's particularly a trial rule that they're looking at that the judge kind of sided to.

So I think when this does go to the Supreme Court, which it will, which is the one that alters and regulates trial rules, I think they'll probably quash it right there in all likelihood.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

That does it does change the nature of previous rulings.

We've seen the Supreme Court where it's evaluating trial rules which say are much more protective of, generally speaking.

Yeah.

All right.

That's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Chris Mitchem.

Ebony Chappel of Free Press Indiana.

And Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Weekend 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 opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is a WFYI production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.