Wrapping up Governor Holcomb's administration.

Legislative leaders message to locals.

Plus, the future of local public health funding and more.

From the television studios at WFYI, it's Indiana Week in Review.

For the week ending January 3rd, 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, Governor Eric Holcomb says he hopes he'll be best remembered for his steady approach to leading Indiana, as his eight year in office comes to a close.

Holcomb says he understands that not everyone views his time leading the state favorably, but he says he hopes people will think of his calm demeanor.

Not too far up, not too far down, focused on the job that we had.

Not maybe next, the next job.

Holcomb touts Indiana's economic growth during his eight years, but his economic development strategy has been the subject of much criticism.

His critics particularly note what they view as the state's focus on luring large out-of-state companies to Indiana.

Instead of focusing on existing in-state businesses, Holcomb says there's no truth to that criticism.

If you really dig in and look at that facts, what someone would learn is most of the business that goes on is small, medium sized businesses.

Every single week we're doing these deals.

Holcomb says the number of expansions of existing businesses far outnumber bringing in new companies from out of state.

What will Eric Holcomb's legacy as governor be?

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

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Chris Mitchem.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle Im Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Ann DeLaney, what do you think Holcomb will be remembered for?

Oh, I don't I don't think there's any question.

It's his public health initiative.

I mean, it is going to make a real difference for the state and hopefully, in, in a, preventive manner, eventually cut costs for Medicaid and other health care programs.

Mean it was the first time there was any significant investment.

What were we doing before, like $7 million a year for public health?

I mean, you might as well just put it in a little pile and burn it.

Now, we have actually have all 92 counties invested in this and doing all kinds of preventive health care.

And, you know, Senator, former Senator Kennedy deserves a lot of credit for leading the charge on this.

It isn't as much as we need to do, but I think it's firmly entrenched.

And when we're starting to see results from it, I think the legislature will be more inclined to invest in it.

Well, we'll talk about that a little later in this episode.

As a matter of fact, but I'm sorry.

No.

You're fine.

It's a it's a preview.

It's a preview.

Yes.

Holcomb what do you think could be best remembered for.

Yeah, obviously, I think the public health initiatives is a good point.

Economic development.

I think it's a low hanging fruit and really even on that and really empower the Iadc obviously existed beforehand, but really the amount of leeway they allowed them to have to go and, you know, whether pro or con, whether you like it or not.

Yeah.

Giving them a lot of power, which I think will eventually result in a lot of good results.

But also I think a lot of credit has to go to him for kind of the declining to follow the national trend.

I think you saw in a lot of Republican states, whether it be Florida or Texas, where the governor kind of leads a lot of the policy talks when it comes to the social issues.

And I think Covid kind of started a lot with that.

That allowed you to kind of have a bully pulpit, if you wanted to, of following those Republican states that a lot of legislatures like to do.

you know, kind of following what is what's going well in the news, I think a lot of credit has to go to him for not deciding to follow that and doing a lot of things that made both Republicans and Democrats upset when it came to Covid, whether it be the mask mandate, taking into account the public health folks.

I think a lot of credit has to go to that.

A maintaining of I think that's very important because I think he he was different that than many of those Republican governors in that regard.

And, and I think our health of the state was better off as a result.

Well, you know, Mike OBrown likes to say this often, which is if you look at the timeline under which Indiana and Florida reopened from the shutdowns in the, you know, the early days of Covid, they're pretty similar.

Like there's not much difference between those two states.

The way they are perceived is wildly different.

A lot of it because of the sort of delivery, between Ron DeSantis and Eric Holcomb.

I asked him, you know, do you think, Covid will be the thing he's he's most remembered for in a negative way?

And he thinks he said he believes that a silent majority of Hoosiers believe he did a good job leading us through the pandemic.

What do you think, Jon?

I think he did do a good job leading Indiana through the pandemic.

For all of the reasons that have been mentioned, he was a very accessible, very visible presence, a very reassuring presence.

was he he was doing daily update.

Daily at the start?

Yeah.

At the start, he, he put a premium on science and medical data, which, not which, which is in stark, sharp contrast.

And I think it's he's cut from what I think is the grand tradition of Indiana leadership, which is about focusing on the needs of the state and then focusing on efficiency and delivering government services in the most effective way possible, rather than just throwing red meat to get people riled up politically.

he very much like a Mitch Daniels, very much like.

And I'm picking Republicans here like a Bob or, even, like, unnoticed, but.

Okay, it's.

Not like a Todd Rokita I think.

Todd Rokita hasn't been governor yet.

Not yet.

Yeah.

In terms of his public health, he had a tremendous impact there.

Yeah.

But I it is with an asterisk because, that also not even though the silent majority may be exist and may applaud him.

There is a very vocal to use this framing minority that is incredibly critical of him.

And it brought to the forefront a debate about emergency powers and the that we saw play out in the Indiana Supreme Court, where Republican led General Assembly was essentially trying to take away powers that had for decades, for generations, been reserved for the government, for the governor, I think.

But for Covid, I mean, he will go down as a very good, very solid governor.

If the Covid thing had not scared some people into thinking he's a totalitarian, he's some scare, you know, that or a Democrat and Republican sheep clothing.

then I think he would have had near universal thumbs up.

What do you think will be the thing that Eric Holcomb is best remembered for, other than other than Henry the Dog?

I mean, I think it has to be Covid.

I mean, you know, for better or worse, that that was, you know, basically two years of his.

Yeah.

Of his tenure was dealing with that issue.

And there are certainly a number of loud Republicans who didn't agree with him.

But it was clear that there was a silent majority who agreed with him because he was reelected that year in 20 by a wide margin, and his approval rating really never dipped massively.

I mean, it was very steady and strong even in recent years.

He didn't always do sort of like sexy culture stuff, but, you know, he would focus on pragmatic things and and so that's what our next level.

Excellent, excellent.

Yeah.

I think it would been really interesting if Covid would have happened in 2019.

Like if a little bit more.

Yeah that's true.

That's true.

Still the highest vote getter on a non federal race I think in Indiana history.

So that that would some of that.

Yes that some of.

That to be fair the Democratic candidate wasn't exactly the strongest they've ever put forward that.

Year.

But there was a stronger than usual libertarian.

That's absolutely true.

Many of the issues lawmakers hope to tackle in the 2025 session affect local communities.

From taxes to road funding, housing to economic growth, and Republican legislators are sending a message to local leaders about what they should do before coming to the state House with requests.

Senate Republican Leader Roderick Bray says on issues like energy, particularly with alternative sources such as solar, some local communities have been resistant, which Bray says he doesn't understand.

People that are trying to advocate.

To put some of these resources into our state probably need to continue to build and work on relationships with those local governments to, to make sure it's worthwhile for everybody.

House Speaker Todd Houston says local governments are important partners, but that any partnership between the state and locals needs to work in both directions.

What are you doing your community to facilitate?

Whether it be energy, whether it be housing or any area that comes up through.

Houston says local leaders have to take some tough votes too.

Chris Mitchem how will this message from leaders Bray and particularly Houston, be received by local leaders?

Yeah, I don't think it's anything necessarily new that they're saying, you know, Indiana being a limited home rule state basically means locals.

You can do whatever you want unless the General Assembly says otherwise.

And, you know, this idea that the general Assembly can come in and kind of do whatever they want.

While that has been the case in certain cases and certainly hasn't been in other other examples, what I'm thinking of is like renewable siting projects, for example, there's been a lot of efforts in the previous years to try to get a a statewide basis of, if you're a renewable provider, how you can come in and build and you don't kind of skip the local government level.

But that's had a lot of issues getting through the legislature, and that requires those providers to go to the local governments and really advocate on a grassroots level.

and, you know, I think public works projects kind of having a standard there, something else that the legislature has failed to really pass for just because of the pushback from the legislature or from local governments.

Excuse me.

So, but when you do are talking about these really broad overview things like property taxes, like road funding that requires local government, not just maybe will take into account what you have to think.

It's requires their input as to how they're going to use it, how the distribution is going to look.

You know, I think this is maybe more of a message of, you know, what the scenario is.

So whenever you do come to the legislature, be prepared to participate in a productive conversation rather than just say, don't take away our funding.

Yeah.

I mean, Tom Houston very much saying like, don't complain to us about funding levels unless you've exhausted all of your funding levels at the local, at the local, in the local arena.

Is that a fair point from Tom Houston?

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Obviously.

I mean, they have cut the percentage of the state budget that goes to public education, and they're asking the locals to pick it up, and then they're complaining about the level of property taxes.

Do.

And there are, you know, I mean, you obviously you could shift it from, from property taxes to income taxes, but it's the locals that are having to make up the shortfall that the state is in providing.

I do think that part of this guidance, if this is what it's designed to do about things like opposing renewable energy projects or opposing low income housing at the local level, I think those are positive steps to tell the locals, look, it isn't just your backyard, it's part of a state, and you need to participate like everybody else in the state.

That would be a positive thing.

On the tax conversation.

how is that going to play out in 2025?

I mean, I feel like I've heard variations of that conversation for, I mean, the wheel tax issue for years has been, you know, that that a lot of communities have not either implemented it or implemented it to its fullest, and yet they also then immediately come to the state and say, we're not going to end up in road funding.

I mean, that to me is low hanging fruit.

Yeah, it does require a tough vote.

But guess what?

You're elected to provide for your community and sometimes you need more revenue to do that.

And that is an example that is there.

so the tax part of that I wasn't too surprised by, I was more surprised by the issues about like renewable siting and housing and housing and things like that.

I think they're getting frustrated that the state isn't making more progress because it keeps getting stopped at the local level.

on the tax conversation specifically, I think I agree with you on the wheel tax.

It feels like that's something specifically going to road funding.

Don't come to us saying we don't have any money.

When you have an opportunity at your level to get a little more, but I'm more interested in the conversation surrounding like property taxes, for instance, Mike Braun's answer to, well, if we reduce property tax revenues to local governments, income tax, the local income tax, jack up your local income tax rate, that feels like very much a political conversation at that point because it's well, I don't I want to lower people's taxes at my level, but you can raise them in your level.

Right.

Well, it's that basic political instinct.

I want to be the good guy, and somebody else should be the bad guy.

And if you can push something unpleasant, either up the chain to the feds or down to local, then why not?

And I think, and we're locals, they're not without blame.

They want to say the problem isn't Indianapolis.

The problem is in Washington.

I'm here for you.

I get it.

the problem is, we've seen a tension between the state legislature and locals that we haven't seen.

And this goes back, I say, a decade or more.

Maybe it's because of Democratic control of Indianapolis, which was not a thing up until the 1990s.

but essentially, what if you look at how these local, these issues play out?

The General Assembly in recent years has been for local control, unless Bloomington or Indianapolis want to do it.

And then that must be bad.

And I'm using those.

That's shorthand.

But those are democratic communities or.

Gary or Fort Wayne.

Right.

but whether it's paper or I mean plastic bags, grocery stores or landlord tenant rights, etc., etc., that's when the general Assembly stepped in.

They have wanted to go even further in terms of taking over policing.

For instance, there have been forces to support for doing that within, for Indianapolis, for instance.

It hasn't succeeded.

but public transit, same thing.

So there's a tension there that I don't recall seeing, when it was more, Republican control of of our population centers as well.

Well, but it also coincides with a Republican supermajority at the statehouse, which I think is not a coincidence either.

And the massive turnover you've seen from lawmakers, like, if you have so many new voices that maybe you vote a different way, right, versus things you couldn't get through in the past, this could kind of be a warning shot of saying this, something.

That concerns me.

And when they start talking about shifting property taxes to income taxes, all of to my knowledge, all of the cities already have an income tax.

Well, they have they can go further off the road.

They don't go up.

They can go up.

That's what they're talking.

About in the other areas of the state are they're going to impose income taxes.

And yet we have examples.

To go back to what I said.

We had tips and certain districts for Indianapolis, for instance, where they were trying to bite the bullet and use those dollars.

And there were forces within the General Assembly that says, no, we're not even going to let you do that.

Yeah.

Just ended this up earlier.

But just three initiatives under Indiana significant local public health funding program generated nearly $100 million in savings for the state.

That's from a new report evaluating Health First Indiana, the state's investment of $225 million for local public health needs.

Prior to that, counties received just $7 million a year from the state.

A report from the Fairbanks School of Public Health evaluated prenatal care, blood pressure screenings, and fall prevention services made possible by the new funding, and the research shows that just those key areas generated $95 million in savings, whether by preventing health care treatment needs or premature death.

Department of Health Commissioner Doctor Lindsey Weaver says the investment isn't just about health, either.

It's an investment in our education.

Kids who are.

Healthier perform better in.

Our businesses, right?

We know that businesses, when they look to move to.

Communities, are looking at the health of that community.

Governor Eric Holcomb says for the program to really work long into the future, the investment can't stop now.

It's real, it's lasting.

It's permanent.

In each local community, each of the 92 counties.

And the good news is the local leaders, you know, throughout the state, understand that this is the right path.

Lawmakers funded the program at 75% of what the governor had initially asked.

Jon, I want to as we talk about the very tough budget picture that lawmakers are going to have to grapple with, how much can these kinds of return on investment numbers sway lawmakers?

I'm sure some lawmakers will be remain unconvinced, like, oh, how do you quantify, you know, savings, you know, how do you prove something that didn't happen?

I think the majority, though, will realize that this was money well spent, that we were woefully underfunded before you mentioned the 7 million, which is kind of a laughable number.

But when you looked at it on a county by county basis, there were counties spending $0.85 per person per year on public health.

I don't know what that buys, but it's not much healthier.

but they weren't available in some counties because, needle exchange.

Say you can spend it on Band-Aids, but not not needles.

so this is, there's any gets back to something we've talked about before.

This should be seemingly a no brainer.

I think the only reason this expansion faced the opposition it did in terms of funding was because of Covid.

And that same pushback I just alluded to.

And I've said before, only somewhat tongue in cheek, maybe a rebranding, get a PR firm to say it's not don't call it public health, because as soon as the P word goes in front of the health word, there are people who just instinctively say, that must be something bad.

You know, and saying, this is these are everything from pool inspections to restaurant inspections to keeping, infectious diseases out of our schools to helping mental health.

I mean, a lot of the money, certainly, we've really beefed up our funding for mental health as well in response to crises.

You know, Governor Holcomb talked about it.

Lindsey Weaver talked about it.

They came in with a lower budget.

You know, ultimately they got a lower budget figure than they would like for this.

But it was like a prove it, program.

It's okay.

We've got this money to start it up.

But now all 92 counties have said yes, please.

We would like more.

How can lawmakers possibly deliver more in the county?

And then you kind of see it as really you've only had one year with all 92 counties in it.

So, I mean, I would be surprised.

I kind of see this one more as a status quo budget request.

They're trying to protect what they have.

from the second year figure.

Correct.

From the second year for sure.

Just keep where we're at for the for the next two years, especially given the lack of new money, I think that would be a safe move for lawmakers.

And then there's another two years of data that they can have that would give them three in all with all 92 counties and imagine what they could show.

Then.

I mean, some of the screening programs these counties are doing are phenomenal.

And so I think they're going to have a lot more good news to share.

I mean, I'm not in charge, but I just feel like a status quo request is going to get them.

Or maybe they ask for something and they know they want the status quo.

And so.

we've talked on a previous episode about the idea that the tight budget picture for Indiana in 2025 might give more rise to things like raising the cigarette tax, which has been discussed for years but never done.

Wouldn't raising the cigarette tax and using that money specifically for this program make a lot of sense?

I think you could show a direct connection.

Yeah.

and you know, this with the smoking cessation programs in that, I mean, if, if, if this works the way we hope it works and gets implemented the way we hope it will be implemented, we should start seeing long term effects on the even on that Medicaid budget.

And that would be what will hold it down.

Not taking the most vulnerable and throwing them off Medicaid, but but actually helping people become more healthy.

And then that's a fundamental part of why this program was created, which is the idea of part of the reason Indiana's health care costs are higher than a lot of other places is because the state is fundamentally unhealthy on a lot of different metrics, but this becomes the problem of short term, long term, right.

And as a lawmaker on the short term, well, I got all of these priorities to spend a relatively limited pool of money on.

And yeah, this might save me money, but it might save me money a decade or two down the line.

How do you balance that?

Well, maybe.

But how do you balance that out?

It's a tough situation for lawmakers.

Just because you see this news and obviously you say that's fantastic news.

There's only three programs here and we only have a year data.

So that's great news.

But it's also the other side of man, this is actually working.

And it's just another thing to add to the list that actually has data behind it that shows that it works, and that's tough.

And if you want to continue down the path of how economically, you know, economic development focus legislature has been, when you hear how long, you know, the Eli Lilly's in the comments of the world have been talking about public health sectors, and you're saving this money that can go more towards parks, more towards, you know, public transportation that can bring these businesses in.

I think if the numbers start showing those kind of angles as well of like if you take this money that you saved here and you could have invested it over here, you could have attracted this business.

Like if you kind of speak the legislature's lingo, with the more these numbers come out, I think it would be a lot more efficient.

And, you know, we just talked about the the conflicts between local governments and the state government.

Well, this is one where they are not in conflict.

They are throwing on the same war on this one.

One selling point here, I think, is that this helps rural areas, which if you look at the state of Indiana, that's where there's the more underserved.

You look at counties where there's no hospital, there's there's.

And so if you can get the preventive care, that's going to help those areas disproportion.

And it was those counties that were paying the $0.88 or the dollar.

It was in Indiana.

Marion County was 80 bucks or something per capita spending.

So they're going to they're going to enjoy a disproportionate benefit, it seems to me.

Lawmakers plan to introduce education bills in the upcoming session on school vouchers, early childhood education, school funding and deregulation.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Kirsten Adair reports Lawmakers gathered at the Indiana Convention Center last month to discuss their priorities.

Republican lawmakers say they'll support universal vouchers for all students, regardless of family income.

That's also one of governor elect Mike Brown's priorities.

Representative Bob Benning says implementing universal vouchers will champion parents rights to make decisions about their children's education.

I think making parents make that choice is, as to what's best for their son or daughter is the best way to move forward.

Benning also says he'll introduce a bill to deregulate education and lift some restrictions on teachers in schools.

Democrats say they'll prioritize public school funding and early learning.

Senator Greg Taylor says he will introduce a bill to lower the age required to enter school from 7 to 5.

House Minority Leader Phil Jackson says he wants lawmakers to fund a robust pre-K program.

Nicki Kelly, are universal vouchers the biggest thing lawmakers will do in education in 2025.

No.

And here's why.

Because we already have universal vouchers.

Last year, when they raised the income limit so high.

Last year, school choice advocates celebrated saying we basically have universal vouchers.

We're already meeting like 97% of the kids who are eligible in the state.

So yes, we're going to pass it.

It's going to be universal vouchers, but it's really only covering the tiniest percentage of people.

So I hope people don't get caught up in it and waste too much time on it, because the the impact of it is actually very small.

Jon, given the, the you know, we remade high school a couple of years ago and then we're tweaking that further in the last session.

Is this there will be plenty of education bills filed.

There will be the omnibus education bills as there always are.

But will this be a for Indiana, a quieter education policy year?

You think would think so, because we've had so many changes in testing and the design of tests and the accountability.

How accountable are teachers?

How accountable are districts.

The reading scores.

The reading scores.

And we've gone through so many sort of, you know, spasms one way or the other.

but you know what?

When you have something that takes up almost 50%, you used to be more than but almost 50% of the state budget.

It's just too big a target for people not just to say this is an area I want to weigh in on.

So we'll see.

No shortage of of legislative proposals, some controversial but some not so controversial.

But this education, keep in mind also is now where so much of the cultural warfare is unfolding.

It used to be it was just about how much money do you get and how long, how many days should the school year be and how many people should be in classrooms now it's are we looking to see if somebody suggests is maybe, identifying with another gender or using a pronoun?

And we got to report to the parents curriculum.

It's a different kind of debate over education, and that's why it won't go away.

All right.

That's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLane Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

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

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Happy New Year and 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.