A final budget deal reached.

Greater oversight of the IEDC plus subsidizing nuclear reactors and more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending April 25th, 2025.

Indian 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, Republican leaders made up a $2 billion budget revenue shortfall by raising the cigarette Tax, cutting public health and higher education funding and spending down budget reserves.

Republican leaders say they started closing the revenue shortfall by making cuts, and then turned to a $2 per pack cigarette tax increase to finish closing the gap.

Senate Leader Rodrik Bray says that tax hike will also help people stop smoking, or prevent them from starting in the first place.

I think it's going to have a huge benefit for the Medicaid costs going forward.

But Democratic Representative Greg Porter says cutting local public health funding down to $40 million a year from 150 million this year is very disappointing.

Is that making Indiana healthy again?

I think it's making us extremely vulnerable when it comes to health care.

Higher education institutions will receive a 5% cut to their primary funding, along with a 5% cut to the dollars they use to maintain buildings.

Does this budget make the best of a bad situation?

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

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

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

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith, and if Niki and I in particular, look a little more tired than usual today, it's because lawmakers finished the legislative session less than 12 hours before we tape this show, a little after 130 in the morning.

So yeah, it's been a bit of a short on a short and long day at the same time.

Ann DeLaney, they finished with the budget.

Does it make the best of a bad situation?

Well it is a bad situation.

There's no question about that.

And the cigarette tax increase is something that should have occurred a decade ago.

So that's good.

But they are so, so shortsighted.

And the Republican priority is to protect business and to protect the rich.

Are ingrained in this budget.

I know that they the vouchers for millionaires isn't taking effect this year, but it's guaranteed to take effect next year.

And the business personal property tax is suspended for this year, but it's doubled for next year.

So those were protected.

On the other hand, we we finally got to the point where we were beginning to fund public health.

And we were seeing results from that funding and they have decimated that.

At the same time, they complain about Medicaid being so expensive and health care costs in general being so expensive.

They don't put the little bit of money in in advance to help cut that off.

And the other one, that's absolutely appalling.

Besides the higher ed cuts, is that the child care we have been doing little tiny steps to increase the state support for child care, which is a huge impediment for many families and particularly to increase the workforce.

And we finally got to 72,000 children on that program, and now we're going to cut it back by 20,000.

I mean, talk about shortsighted.

That's what this budget is, their guarantee.

We're not guaranteeing.

They are betting on the fact that Donald Trump, who, by the way, has tanked the dollar internationally, is going to improve the economy so much so that we're not going to have the same problem next year.

Let's wait and see.

I want to ask about the voucher expansion, because I think after the revenue forecast last week was so bad, I think a lot of folks kind of assumed it just wouldn't happen this session and that they do it in the next budget.

Assuming the next budget is better, which, dear God, I hope the next budget is better.

are you surprised that even waiting to the second year that it that it happened at all?

I'm not.

I think the governor wanted it.

Speaker Houston wanted it.

Ryan Mishler didn't want it.

It's like this dance between doing every, every two years for, you know, for vouchers became a thing.

so no, I wasn't I wasn't surprised they kicked it out.

Frankly, I think what they did, you know, you had like five minutes to, like, go, oh, no, we don't have $2.4 billion we thought we had.

Right.

Like last week.

And then you had to pass the budget yesterday.

you know, so I think my, my let's paper through the rest of the year said, you know, maintain our priorities in year two, but we're back next year.

We don't know what's going to happen in six months.

We don't know what's here.

So, you know, we don't know what President Trump's going to do, do next on on tariffs I mean, or.

Federal funding or shuttle funding.

Or any.

Things.

Right.

So, Andy, there's this he probably, you know, so let's let's at least just like, okay, snapshot in time where $2.4 billion down over the, you know, over the next to two years, in a few months, so let's just maintain our priorities but maybe delay them.

And then we have the opportunity to come back next year.

And I think there are good things in this budget that that were surprising that they were able to be able to do that they haven't been able to do in previous downturns.

you know, we're kind of like increase the K-12 education funding by 5%, you know, like for.

Vouchers.

In previous budgets.

But but immediately, in previous recession budgets, you know, pre-recession budgets, that's been that's been hard cut, like the.

Basis of previous recession budgets.

And I think we're if you look at the if you look at the charts on revenue growth, obviously we've fallen off, but we're only 1% off of growth pre-COVID.

And we got we I know we don't want to admit it, but we got really used to having a lot of federal money flowing two.

Straight budgets that.

Were you had 26% revenue growth.

And, you know, the last biennium, you know, that's all federal money.

And we got and we got pretty used to living on it.

Rod Brake called this, called crafting this budget the toughest challenge lawmakers have ever faced.

Tough.

If you do have sacred cows, I mean, if if, in fact, you have these favored programs such as the universal voucher expansion and other sorts of things that are essentially essentially off the.

Table income tax.

It doesn't they they said K-12 was going to be is off the table as they could make it.

And it was it didn't change.

When I think this budget reminds us of it's this is not a this is again an obvious statement that our system, whether you're talking Washington or here, it's based on instant gratification because they face in the House voters every two years or in the Senate every four years.

We it doesn't really lend itself to long term growth and strategy and strategy development as a state.

So what you see is where the cuts, if you if you were focused on the future and building a healthier, more robust Indiana, literally and economically, it seems to me you wouldn't cut child care.

You wouldn't cut our our research institutions and other, higher education institutions which are grooming people for this workforce, which we often talk about how we need to have people, for that workforce.

Than, than that.

And, you know, it was pointed out, you talk about not just education at, at these universities, but also the research that they do because theoretical research becomes applied, research becomes, oh.

You look at the social rotation.

There's a reason to do it.

But like you look you do in these times, look at people and go higher.

Ed can weather that.

They're not cutting it in, in, in health we didn't cut spending and we reduced it down to what's being spent.

Well so so not going to grow.

But no.

On this.

Notion of instant gratification or at least immediate avoidance of pain.

The same thing with with public health.

The most obvious example, where you cut from 100 to 1 million to 40 million and they.

Cut to what was being spent.

Though.

Yeah, but they needed time to get up and they.

Said, does this environment go, hey, but it's.

Button.

But it's.

They didn't pause it though.

For some interesting justification, but I think it does remind us not that any of us needed reminding.

That's all about what can I go this week?

Next week when I wake up from my slumber and go to voters, down at the coffee shop and face them, can I what can I tell them?

They don't want to.

And it's not necessarily legislators fault that that no one wants to hear what they're doing for ten years down the road.

It's interesting to me, too, on that subject, because if you listen to, the final debate on the budget in the House and the final debate in the Senate, you got wildly different messages from the people who wrote those budgets in the House.

And the Senate really.

Was Representative Hobson.

He, he really he picked a theme and it was freedom.

Although I never really understood the theme to the budget, but it was freedom.

And he was very clear about that, and he was pretty excited about the budget.

He was very.

Passionate.

And then, you know, we move over to the Senate.

And Senator Mishler, he's just a lot more you know, even keel.

And he said, look, I don't think there's a lot of people are going to see that this is a win.

But, you know, it's what we have to do to get through.

Yeah.

And and that that is what they did.

There are definitely positives and negatives in there for various constituencies there.

They are going to take a hit on the cigarette tax increase.

That just is not really appreciated.

in conservative circles, including lawmakers who have taken no tax increase pledges.

So even, you know, I think I remember the same sort of conversation is happening when they did the big road funding package in 2017.

I don't think we really saw a lot of electoral fallout.

You didn't see one positive thing from that budget, though, the increase that Lieutenant Governor Beckwith asked for to do his conversion therapy through faith was not approved.

That's the positive.

Lawmakers were also very excited about the oversight of the secretary of state.

So it's now time to plug everyone increase in their personal contribution to WFYI.

Yeah, well, that is good.

I want talked short sighted.

Yes.

Talk about building for the future.

Literally, where we can help kids learn, you know, to supplement what they're getting at school.

That's what I PBS.

That's what, this presentation.

No, I'm not.

Maybe not.

We don't want to teach them the bad stuff, but.

I don't know.

I don't know that we have a ton of kids.

Not that we often talk about, but there is I think when we talk about the freedom agenda, we're probably overlooking the obvious.

You got to have some appreciation for the freedom from reality, which is which is maybe part of it, too.

It could be a good part of.

Following a series of internal investigations into the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the Braun administration is launching a forensic audit.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Lauren Chapman reports.

Secretary of Commerce David Adams says there are enough questions that a comprehensive look is necessary.

The Hannah News Service published an investigation earlier this week detailing allegations of ethics violations in self-dealing by staffers employed by IEDC affiliated organizations.

Adams says the administration doesn't yet have a complete scope of those allegations, but an independent forensic audit would fill in those missing parts.

This a forensic audit is a very different type of audit that's looking beyond the financials, but is looking into specific.

Transactions as well as processes.

Governor Mike Braun says the IEDC has filed the financial reports he demanded in an April 8th executive order.

We are on our way to greater transparency in that regard.

The forensic audit will be paid for by IEDC funds and is expected to take between 6 and 12 months to complete.

Mike O'Brien, we've talked on this show and there's been a lot of conversation for a few years about transparency and oversight at the IEDC.

How big a step towards greater oversight of that agency is this?

Well, I think it's going to be a big one.

And good for Mike Braun.

Governor Braun being this upfront, this quickly about it, once they kind of discovered what was potentially going on over there.

look, I think the concept with this, you know, venture capital firm, you know, created back in 2011, you know, that's the reason the IEDC exists.

It's doing things that state government can't, can't do.

Right, right.

but that needs a lot of that does need transparency.

It does need oversight.

It does need appropriate guardrails.

you know, and I think, you know, one of the the people I think in that report looks looks the best was the former secretary of Commerce, David Rosenberg, who clearly was like ringing the bell on this thing and not willing to go to go forward to allow, you know, the people at that, at that firm to either become fiduciaries of taxpayer money or, you know, make, make an unreasonable and inappropriate amount of money off the fund.

So, you know, we're going to find out a lot more in the next, you know, the next few months.

But, you know, good for the Braun administration, for pulling back the curtain on it.

Yeah.

Is this time to applaud Mike Braun for for taking.

I think it's a good idea.

It's something that's long overdue.

But the interesting thing to me is the use of the term forensic.

To me, that implies potential criminal activity.

And when you when you've got the three entities that are out there dealing with all of this, and I don't know how many of them wear the two hats in that group, and, you know, if you have the potential for self-dealing when you've got that amount of money being sent under the I don't want to say under the table, but without the public scrutiny there, the potential for abuse is substantial.

But the use of the term forensic raises questions in my mind as to whether this potential criminal activity.

Well, it.

Certainly means they're taking it seriously, if nothing else.

we still haven't.

We started to see lawmakers push back a little bit even before this all came out, at least publicly in the budget, really started to see lawmakers start to really push back against the IDC, right?

Yeah.

I mean, we've seen it in a couple of bills this year.

There was another bill that had some IEDC oversight in terms of purchase, land purchases and, giving more information on these innovation development districts that they have.

Now, obviously, they've cut some of their funding.

I think they're saying, along with the 5% cuts that they've tried to do with most general government.

Yeah.

They said they cut the IEDC funding by 25 to 20 5 to 30%.

So I definitely think, people are are getting concerned at the massive amounts of money that flow through there.

And what metrics are we actually using and, and, and like and said the self-dealing the who is getting you know, benefits enriched.

Yeah.

That's a big one that will come out.

Know if the administration you couldn't ask for a better scenario than this because you've been trying to distinguish yourself from the previous administration.

Also, with the Republican administration, there has been this ongoing drumbeat, as you point out, about IDC needs to be reined in a little bit more, have oversight.

It needs to not focus on certain areas.

Whether it does or doesn't is debatable, but the notion it needs to be spread around the state, more local control, more of a focus on agriculture, etc., etc., etc.

so to have a crisis or something where you can appear to be the fixer, you're going to come in and you're going to, you know, pull back the curtains, you're going to get to the bottom of this.

You can look like you're the white knight that way.

And then you know, you can again draw that, that line with whatever happened before.

You can say, oh, well, if the district or whatever projects were undertaken that I think.

That's what triggered it.

The combination of the lack of planning on the water and the the finding out that they were paying $100,000 an acre for farm ground, I think.

Started, you know, bad side for the administration.

I know in fact, it I mean to be served on it.

Mike Braun was talking months and I mean in the in the.

Campaign it.

Was and he was not the only one but talking about a a fundamental shift in the state's economic development strategy, this sort of thing makes that sort of thing even easier.

Whoever said, you know, quite a recent waste, this is an example, you know.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is is there adequate oversight of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation?

A yes or B no?

Last week's question was should lawmakers raise some taxes, like those on cigarettes and alcohol, to help avoid some budget cuts?

82% of you said yes, 18% said no.

Apparently lawmakers were listening.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to fedora org slash.

We're and look for the poll.

Well, a bill that could keep coal plants online and give tax incentives to small modular nuclear reactors headed to the governor's desk this week.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Rebecca Thiele reports.

Some lawmakers question whether Hoosiers should pay for those incentives.

With a $2 billion shortfall in the state budget.

The bill would allow a company that manufactures small nuclear plants to claim a 20% tax credit, a minimum of $280 million Democratic Representative Matt Pearce asked the House to revise the bill.

Imagine what we could do with $280 million when it comes.

To providing people with health.

Care, child care.

Other essential services.

That.

People may rely upon the state for.

That's about twice the amount lawmakers have been budgeting for local public health services this session.

The author of the bill says it would help Indiana compete with other states for hundreds of good paying jobs.

The bill also requires utilities that want to close a coal plant to replace it with the same amount of energy capacity, or more.

That could put cleaner energy sources at a disadvantage.

Niki Kelly It's all about context and timing.

Does that tax credit look bad this particular year?

Yeah, although I will say that besides property taxes, the thing most people want to talk to me about sometimes are their electric bills.

And so they're, they're they're kind of throwing everything against the wall, you know, at this thing to try to figure out a way to increase reliability and affordability on this front.

I will say in terms of tax credits, it was very interesting yesterday to see a tax credit that didn't make it or exemption that didn't make it in the budget, which is the pink tax on menstrual products and adult diapers that did not make it.

But later, in a different bill, they did approve a tax exemption for agricultural trade associations who sell things at the fair.

So, I mean.

It's in the swine barn.

Yeah.

You see it?

It's out.

it's always interesting to watch, you know, which tax, incentives are given and which aren't.

And, you know, to be fair to this, I don't think we're going to I, I would be surprised if companies start getting this tax credit within this current budget cycle, because it still feels like, well, smarter than nuclear reactor technology is more than a few years away.

Well, I think proof of that is, and it's interesting that some of the people supporting this said we need to remain competitive and be at the forefront.

Well, no state in the country has it.

So Russia and China have.

I mean, I guess we're going to be right there at number three.

But, it is interesting they embrace of this.

I'm not a scientist, but now that we know that solar power and wind are, you know, major cause of cancer and other, we can rely on safe nuclear reactors reactions and, fusion.

Nuclear fission.

Refused.

Which is it?

I forget that part two to to safely bring us to the future.

And I'm not I'm not trying to knock nuclear.

I don't know enough about safe technology, but.

Hopefully.

Well, certainly safer than.

When I was.

I will say that something that struck me, I think, it might have been Representative Matt Pierce brought it on the floor.

The lawmakers are really all in on the smart stuff, too, because there was, I think, another bill that had to do with local siting of these things.

And basically, like the locals can't really oppose an SMR going in wherever it wants.

But, wind and solar lawmakers have all the options to oppose that stuff.

Does that make sense?

If we're trying to embrace the all of the above strategy we got to.

Yeah.

And they they tried to address siting.

Right.

And they have for several things.

They have.

To share.

Yeah.

Local past one.

Local local.

I was about to pass on.

Yeah.

one thing I think what we saw pretty quickly, if you look at renewable energy or data centers or battery plants or all this stuff that the pitchfork crowd shows up and paints and houses, wind, solar and, you know, you name it.

what what we've seen in the last couple of weeks have been local governments looking at the property tax bill and going, oh, no, we got to write raising your income taxes, pitchfork crowd or we're growing our values.

So you got to pick now.

Yeah.

So I think that's more likely to change the landscape of of the energy generation than that this tax credit would frankly.

I mean Duke Nipsco yes.

They're all they're all going to natural gas.

Yeah.

there's other companies coming to the state to build, large scale natural gas plants.

you know, maybe you use this tax credit as you're, like, walking out the door on coal, but I don't I don't see it making a huge impact.

Yeah.

To that point, again, sort of on the timing of this, it looks bad because, $280 million at minimum credit in a year when you're cutting so many programs.

But this isn't going to happen for a while.

It's not going to hit the bottom line as a state.

Happened for years.

It's not going to happen for years.

But the thing that kind of bothers me about this is they can start taking the tax credit immediately as soon as they start constructing, if they ever finish it or not, they don't have to give it back, you know?

All right, school board elections will become partisan under the legislation sent to the governor by the narrowest of margins this week, Indiana will join less than a dozen states that put school board candidates party affiliation on the ballot.

The original bill would have forced all school board candidates to choose a party label, and required major party candidates to run in primaries.

The final version allows candidates to choose a label for the general election Republican, Democrat, independent or nonpartisan.

Republican Senator Gary Byrne says it's about transparency.

These school boards control millions of dollars in property taxes, so I would say that alone makes them political.

But Republican Senator Liz Brown says school board candidates political beliefs have never been an issue where she lives.

Though school board members focus on the policy and how to get our K-12 kids to where they need to be to be successful citizens in the world.

The Senate approved the bill 26 to 24.

Jon Schwantes, will a lot change in school board make up across Indiana.

Some will have to change because there are people who will be barred from running or holding office because of federal regulation, the Hatch Act and other sorts of things so that, yes, other others who will say, you know what, I want to bang my head against the wall.

And I this is what used to be a great way to to get engaged and give back to the community.

Don't need it anymore.

And you'll probably then have some more strident partizans entering the fray as part of some sort of slate that, you know, is is bandied about is the answer to all, all problems.

You know, the notion that was put forth here is that the reason we have to have this notion of political accountability, because you know, they are controlling property taxes.

Well, under the voucher plan, a lot of private school boards and unelected officials are controlled.

Hundreds are, let's say, tens of millions of dollars of, of of taxes, as well.

So where's the I'm not sure that argument holds water.

You don't see closer votes than this one in the Senate for the most part, especially with a supermajority.

something that struck me this entire time in this debate was Liz Brown has been opposed to it from the beginning.

I don't think you could find a more partizan person in the state house than Liz Brown, but she was someone who said when she first ran, she made the she first ran for school board.

She didn't want to be Partizan in that role.

And she also made a good point that while some central Indiana, districts have gotten very political very quickly, the vast majority of school boards out and about in Indiana are just doing the work, and they're not getting caught up in a lot of these parties.

This whole this.

And so and that was one thing that Liz Brown also pushed back on.

Is I'm in the safest political space you could possibly be in Indiana for Liz Brown.

I agree with Liz.

I just imagine what those ballots are going to look like.

I mean, if you say that you're a Republican in Hamilton County, you could have ten candidates on that ballot.

And if you have the judges on that same, we're talking about pages and pages and pages of ballots.

And you have to be one of three things, right?

What about.

Four things?

You could be a Republican, a Democrat, independent.

Or nothing.

Or nonpartisan?

I think they will have it just it's a blank slate.

About libertarians and others.

I guess they would just fall under Indiana.

So I can see that grounds for litigation there.

If certain parties aren't given their due.

certainly libertarians who have automatic ballot affairs.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah, it does create a potential problem.

It could be a lawsuit there, I'm guessing.

Oh, it's fun.

We love we love lawsuits around here.

the last thing I'll say is, the thing that struck me is, I'm surprised.

Clearly, the Senate wanted to go further.

They wanted to put it in primaries.

Do you think this gets resurrected to go further or lawmakers done.

Now.

I think this is probably all that they could get through in the 22nd to see how that's going to go for a couple years.

I mean, they held that bill for several days, waiting to get everyone in the room that they needed.

Yeah.

All right.

That's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol 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.