(Music) A sedate debate in the Senate race.

Recommendations from a health care costs panel.

Plus an economic futurecast and more from the television studios at wfyi.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending November 1st, 2024.

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

This week, the lone debate in Indiana's 2024 U.S. Senate race was a sedate exchange between just two of the three candidates, as Republican Jim Banks declined to participate.

Democrat Valerie McCray and Libertarian Andrew Horning did take the opportunity Tuesday to share their policy ideas.

They disagreed on several topics, including health care, gun regulations, and the country's support of conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.

For Horning, the disagreement was often rooted in his view that most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

We need to reprioritize.

What we're using government for.

You know, the fact that we are funding every other country on the planet, we're using our armies and our dollar to force other countries to do what we want when we're not taking care of our own people here at home.

That's ridiculous.

But Horning and McCray never argued, rarely even addressing each other.

Horning even used one rebuttal solely to share his appreciation for a McCray answer.

Banks was mentioned only twice by either of his opponents.

McCray referenced him in an answer about supporting federal legislation to spur tech manufacturing.

My other opponent, however, has tried to block these bills that were bringing information and bringing money, bringing technology to Indiana.

McCray also used her final words in the debate to say banks skipped it because he disrespects Hoosiers.

Did the Senate debate have a winner?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week interview panel Democrat Elise Schrock.

Republican Chris Mitchem.

Jon Schwantes is host of Indiana lawmakers.

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

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

Jim, did either of the two candidates who showed up do anything to win over voters?

I don't think so.

And really, that's I mean, part partly it's I think it's because the the Indiana Debate Commission, unfortunately, they had that rule or they had a notice that basically said, you can't say anything about Jim Banks.

He doesn't have the opportunity to rebut.

Right.

So if you're Valerie McCray or Mr. Horning, the only point of doing that debate is to attack banks.

Right.

Attack his character.

Attack that he's not showing up to debate.

Attack what some people think of as his far right policies.

So, you know, if the only thing you have left to do in a debate is try to describe what you would do better.

We know that some of the far left policies that McCray was saying, such as Medicare for all, allowing an open border, allowing an open southern border, and then also just trying to implement Ro on a nationwide level.

Again, you know, those are things that are not going to appeal to Indiana Republican voters that you need to go forward and win this election.

Let's talk about that debate, Commissioner rule, because how does Jim Banks essentially get to dictate, get dictate rules to a debate he didn't show up to?

Yeah.

And I think that's pretty weak.

And I also think there should be a wider rule where if you don't show up to debate, you don't get media coverage, because unfortunately, when you don't show up to debate, that becomes the story.

And that does no service to Hoosiers.

The story should be what was happening at the debate, and you make yourself part of the story.

So this this was a disservice to Hoosiers all across the board by Jim Banks, who you're the candidate as a candidate, that is your job.

And for weeks on this show, I have said no one gets a gold star for showing up.

And, you know, across the table, folks have rolled their eyes saying, oh, that's just, you know, an application of a Trump narrative.

No, it actually happened here in Indiana, where a Republican did not show up to a bait debate to do the job of a candidate, which is to say what they need to say.

And I think it would have been an opportunity for Jim Banks, because I think if you ask the average Hoosier, what has Jim Banks done for you?

They wouldn't be able to say that.

They wouldn't know.

They wouldn't be able to give any type of narrative to what that is.

And I'll say two Democrats also declined debates on statewide levels as well.

So it's not a single.

But it was his chance to say, here's what I've done in Congress and, and, and let people know what that is.

And I don't think people know.

I want to ask again about that debate commission rule, because it does.

I want to talk about the future.

Yeah.

What incentive does a candidate have in the future to show up to a debate commission debate when they know they can just go, yeah, screw it.

And they can't even talk about.

That's a terrible rule.

And and, you know, they said, well, because he wouldn't have a chance to rebut, showing up was his chance to rebut.

And he chose not to.

Which, you know, whatever, that's a choice.

But to then make that hurt the other candidates who can't even draw distinctions with their primary opponent because he's not there.

I just think was pretty unfair.

Getting down to.

So it was a debate in that sense, then focused solely on policy.

And they, didn't really talk about each other very much.

I get this moment.

It made me laugh out loud because you don't see this in debates anywhere.

Was Andrew Horning literally raised his hand for the 32nd rebuttal, said, I just want to say I appreciate what doctor McCrae just said.

Thank you.

I just found that charming.

but getting down to the policy is that the sort of thing that people watching it, people reading about it, people listening to it are going to go, yeah, that's going to help make up my mind.

People who watch and listen to this show.

Yes, they like policy.

I will, and I'm not trying to blow smoke.

I mean, we have an obviously a sophisticated audience that appreciates vigorous discussion of policy and are essentially policy wonks.

That doesn't define the typical voter in 2024.

It seems to me everybody thinks it's enviable and admirable to say I want more policy, but.

Really, I mean, given this, I'm not sure they they are, again, the exception of our audience and others like it.

It just, I think now we have started to watch debates for the missteps and the gaps, and that has become the raison d'etre, especially when you have the kinds of rules that we've discussed here, which really don't make sense when you can't, I mean, that's like a sports event where one team, you know, keeps half of its players off the field and you but you can't play offense against that team because they're you know.

I mean, not to not to attack the debate commission too much, but go ahead.

But yeah, but even in the even in the gubernatorial debate, which I do think was really good, I think a great job, strong debate, and it was well done by the debate commission, except for cutting off further rebuttal, it was one chance to rebut maybe 15 seconds more after that, when sometimes I get that you want to get to as many questions as possible, but sometimes it's good for people to see these people disagreeing each other and what those disagreements are, because it's not it wasn't.

Always a bad thing.

Yes, conflict is an opportunity for you to see what people do in instances where they're under fire.

And when you're the governor of a state, as a constituent, you kind of want to see what folks are going to do when the pressure is on.

Because it's healthy conflict, too.

It's I mean, if it was just name calling and things like that, that stuff.

You want to see what how people react and how they meet the moment.

Yeah, sadly, it seems to me, and I say this with no glee, that's bad for democracy.

But it seems to me the only debate that would have mattered in this race was the one that Mitch Daniels had with himself and his closest advisers last year, when he was weighing whether to get into the race and eventually opted not to under a lot of pressure from the banks, people saying it would be nasty and you would regret it.

I don't say that with, you know, with any sort of enthusiasm that this race was done at that point.

But that's when this race was decided, when Mitch Daniels decided a year ago not to compete.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is who will win the race for Indiana governor?

A Republican, Mike Braun, B Democrat Jennifer McCormick or C Libertarian Donald Rainwater.

Last week, we asked you whether any of Indiana Supreme Court justices who are up for retention will lose that retention vote.

46% of you say yes, 54% say no.

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

While high health care costs are a significant concern for Hoosiers and lawmakers in Indiana, Public Broadcasting's Abigail Ruhman reports.

A legislative study committee tasked with exploring policies to address high costs made six broad recommendations this week ahead of the 2025 legislative session.

The Health Care Cost Oversight Task Force approved its final report this year with several recommendations, such as monitoring the effect of previous legislation and maintaining quality of and access to care.

The recommendations presented appear to be much less specific than last year's recommendations.

Representative Brad Barrett is the chair of the task force.

He says the value of interim study committee hearings has shifted in the past 10 to 15 years.

So this year's final report has generalize broad based findings.

It was almost like the hearing before the hearing.

But I see that that's changed.

And I look at this as, informational.

The task force mean no recommendations on pharmacy benefit managers and the effect they have on health care costs.

Despite multiple hours of testimony on the topic during each meeting this year.

Elise, does a report like this have value for lawmakers in session?

I think in general they do.

I think reports like this do.

And I think for some of us who are kind of like in the inner sanctum of politics, they're also like tea leaves, right?

We're trying to look to see what happens with these, to see what we can expect for the next session.

And this one was interesting because you had all of this testimony for issues that didn't end up in the report, which makes me wonder if maybe there's a disagreement in leadership and a disagreement in the approach.

So I'm interested to see what may happen as we get closer to session to see how this is actually going to be addressed and what the approach is going to be, because I think there's general agreement that there is an issue to be solved.

and I mean, and this is kind of like the textbook, you know, template response, there's issues to be resolved.

How are we going to solve it?

But like but here it really seems like there is a difference.

And in the path that we're going to go down.

And I think those are the questions we need to be asking early on in session to see how leadership is going to reconcile that moving forward, because it's a very important issue we have to address.

I mean, I think we can all agree that increasingly, what happens in the study committee does not dictate what happens in the legislative session because less and less seems to be happening for a lot of study committees, not all of them.

but on this one, trying to read those tea leaves because I think that's that's a great way to put it.

What do you see as the things they're actually going to try to do?

Yeah.

First, I think Representative Barrett's absolutely right when it comes to just the general trend of study committees becoming more information gathering versus actually information gathering and then making actual recommendations.

so I think he's absolutely right on that.

But when it comes to the actual report that this, committee published, it's pretty drastically different than the report that the same committee published last year that you actually saw a lot of bills come from, you know, the hospital mergers, just to name.

Well, off the top of my head that I can think of came from the legislature, from the committee last year.

So I think with this broader recommendations, one thing could be, I don't think there's so much leadership difference as so much as you could just be leaving a blank slate for a Governor Braun, a governor McCormick, to come in and have, you know, just general recommendations.

I think the health care aspect right now reminds me a little bit of the education, where you've had a lot of significant bills in the past couple of years that the legislature has been a little heavy, more heavy handed than what you're used to.

So let's sit down, wait and see what all of these increase reporting and increase data comes in before we start making more decisions.

To that end, I think a lot of Hoosiers, regardless of partizan stripe, are a little doubtful.

What the General Assembly might do to actually really substantially tackle high health care costs.

So I think that's a question they have if any politician in the country at this point, considering that they just keep going up, but worse in Indiana than a lot of other places.

Does a report like this with just such broad recommendations, especially to your point, after last year of much more specific recommendations, does it feed the fire of, oh, you're not really going to do anything, are you?

To the extent that Hoosiers are even aware that this committee met or issued this report to the point that at least made earlier, there are people who follow this and read the tea leaves and want to dissect and parse every sentence.

But that's not the average Hoosier either.

And so I think they're unaware.

They know that they pay a lot out of pocket.

They know that they have high deductibles.

They know that they have more trouble getting health insurance than they used to, and they know that they pay more for it.

So I'm not sure that that's the mental gymnastics with which they're they're wrestling right now.

but it's, it's I think the tendency will be and one of the reasons we saw a difference in this year versus last year, in terms of the reports, is that desire to wait and see, what the measures we have put in place are going to do because, a lot of transparency measures, dashboards that supposedly are aimed at consumers were passed several years ago, but really took a while to implement.

So they've only been up for a matter of months in the case of that, that dashboard.

So and this won't happen.

This is not the only information.

Let's look for instance, Fairbanks School of Public Health at IU.

also in the past week or so issued a report looking at this, a similar issue when it showed things such as we have a high much higher rate, for instance, of self-insurance among employers in the state compared to neighbors and others across the country where that is dropping.

We have more high deductible plans.

So maybe there you know, I think the problem is we don't know who the villain is.

We know there's a problem, but we don't know if it's the insurance companies.

Do we know if the health care providers or heaven forbid, is it Hoosiers who haven't gotten the message they need to have healthier lifestyles and stop killing themselves earlier than they have.

To to the wait and see approach.

But we've heard, I believe Senate President Pro Tem Rod Bray kind of talking in that realm of well, we have all of this data now coming online.

We're going to let's take a look at how some of the stuff we've done plays out.

Can lawmakers afford to take a wait and see approach in what's going to be such a monumental session?

I think we probably can.

And a lot of this is I mean, as much as I appreciate their efforts, a lot of this is national policy dictated.

And I also think the reason these were so much more general was they've done a lot like they've done oversight and transparency all over the board.

The next step is to get really specific and start blocking, you know, setting price limits on things like insulin and stuff.

But that goes against Republican philosophy of private markets.

So I think they are really struggling with what is the next step that can keep us still within our, you know, our philosophic belief.

That's only allowed with utilities and energy.

And knowing that there are like two hours worth of Hoosiers willing and their advocates willing to come to the state House to say, we need this.

We we absolutely need this in our daily lives.

All right.

Indiana University business school leaders say the national and state economies are returning to normal.

But those leaders also warn that there's uncertainty in the economic forecast they unveiled this week, pending the results of next week's election.

The Kelly School of Businesss Futurecast, shows less economic and employment growth in 2025 compared to the last few years.

But business school leaders say it puts the state and the country on a sustainable path to growth.

That's despite how many people feel about the economy, says Indiana Business Research Center Director Carol Rogers.

The stealing economy versus the actual behavior that we're still going to Target and Walmart and shopping on Amazon.

But there's still, as Rogers puts it, certain uncertainty, much of it tied to the election.

As Professor Russell Rhodes noted in his presentation.

Yeah, doing a market outlook before we know who's going to be president, who wants this job.

If former President Donald Trump wins and carries out his promises to enact significant tariffs, it could incite a global trade war.

And Rogers says that would be particularly damaging to Indiana, whose economy relies on exports.

Niki, this is maybe a question about the election as much as it is about economics and forecasts.

but why do you think so many people feel the economy is bad?

when the numbers tell us and their behavior tells us that it's performing so well?

Yeah, I think probably it's because of the inflation.

Right.

And you know, nine out if you take ten key metrics and good, good good good good year to inflation is bad.

But because that's the one people are seeing every day in the grocery store at the gas pump, you know all that.

So I do think inflation is the big thing that's holding people back from embracing the fact that it's actually better than they think.

And is part of the problem here, too, Jon, that on inflation, inflation has come down.

It is now at almost 2%, which is the level that that everybody wanted to get to, the fed wanted to get to, and everything else is 2.1 I think was the the last number that came out.

But that's not in an isolation.

Right.

It's after a year and a half of really high inflation that inflated these prices.

And that's all we remember.

We don't remember.

Well the price hasn't really gone up since in the last six months.

Remember I remember what I was paying for this 2 or 3 years ago.

And this is insane.

And that's why they still feel so bad about.

And there are television commercials, incessant television commercials telling you every commercial break that you should be honked off about the economy.

Then you're paying more.

So I mean, that becomes a storyline that sort of is embedded in the in the discussion.

consumer confidence lags, reality or the market forces.

And, but we are seeing an uptick just this week, confidence consumer confidence index ticked up.

I think by about 11% was the largest increase or it's to the highest level now.

It was since March of 2021. so those are happening.

You saw the Wall Street Journal this week, say that whoever's elected president is going to have a tailwind and a half economically behind his or her back.

Things are looking good.

We we landed the economy.

We as if on the Federal Reserve.

the fed.

Thank you.

I'm glad to do this for you.

You know, brought this, economy back to normal without sinking the ship and sending the country and the world into recession.

So I think it just as a matter of keeping up.

But remember, a lot of this goes back 20, 30 years and has to do as much with automation.

And in the changing face of, of manufacturing as it does with any current day event, we have to.

Remember we're not also in a vacuum.

We're in Indiana where we are lagging in quality of life indicators at every step.

So yeah, it feels bad because our quality of life is not great.

So, you know, you can talk about how great the economy is.

But if like in our last segment where we're talking about how hard it is to pay for your, the medical necessities, or if you're in a rural area and it's hard to find medical care, period.

Or if you are lacking in several other ways that we rank at the bottom.

You know, if you're hearing that the economy is bad and it just feels bad to live, it's hard to get out of that space mentally.

And I started by saying this question is as much about the election and what's going to happen as it is, but is part of the answer to the question also about the election.

And inevitably, when you have a national election, one group of people is going to be saying, everything is awful, surely I can fix it.

Yeah, I absolutely, and I think one part of the report that they got absolutely right is inflation has come down.

But that doesn't mean that prices are also coming down.

They're still high to where they were 3 or 4 years ago.

To your point.

So if you're a Republican, absolutely you're using that talking point because it's reality.

People are still complaining back in 2019 they were better.

Off prices and mean that's what that and food of course, are the big indicator.

The gas prices more than anything else, because it's the only thing you can see without stepping foot in a store.

It's you can just see, oh, that's lower than it was.

Yeah, that's what all the data say.

It's food and gas.

But the answer is simple.

For Indiana monthly, Taylor Swift concerts in the state of Indiana.

Clearly.

And IU football continues to go undefeated for the next millennium will solve.

All that's true.

Taylor Swift coming to Muncie.

All right.

Next Tuesday is Election day, which means it is time for predictions.

All right.

Our first one, I'm going to ask you about the presidential race, but I will not put any of you under the gun and ask you who's going to win the whole shebang.

So I will say that Donald Trump won Indiana by 16 percentage points in 2020.

Will that margin get bigger?

Will it get smaller or will it stay about the same this year?

Elise, I'll start with you.

I think it's the margin will decrease.

And I'm not basing that on excitement really for Harris, but I'm basing that on when I am out of Indianapolis.

just exhaustion and less enthusiasm for Trump.

Does the margin what is the margin?

Do I think it stays the same?

Because I do think whenever you get out of the Marion County and surrounding counties circles, this idea that a vote for Trump is the end of democracy as we know it, I don't think it's resonating as much out there.

And whenever you get past that and you look at where we are in 2019, which is where we are now, I think people are going to stick with 2019 and go with Trump.

So I think it stays.

About the same.

He won.

He won by nearly 20 points in 2016 and then by 16 points in 2020.

Don't get that confused because that's real easy.

But so it did get it did go down.

Does it go down again?

It does.

I think the margin continues to shrink.

I'd say by 2,025%.

The third.

yeah, I think it might drop 1%.

I think around 15.

I'm not going to ask you who's going to win the Senate race because as we talked about that a little bit, it does seem like the most foregone conclusion event, which.

Is going to get.

Right.

Yeah.

so I'll ask this Will Jim Banks win the most votes of any statewide candidate this year?

Good shot.

Although I do look at attorney general a little bit just because it doesn't have a libertarian candidate.

I think that could finesse it a little bit.

But he's got a good shot.

Yeah.

Historically, the AG candidate usually is the highest vote getter.

Is it Jim Banks, the cycle?

I'd say that's likely.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm going to go with him being the top vote getter.

Makes sense.

All right.

this is obviously now it's time for the real nitty gritty, like actual, you know, put your put your reputation, reputations on the line.

Who's going to win the race for governor?

Niki, we'll start with you on this one.

Gosh.

I mean, two weeks ago, I would have been like Mike Brown all the way, but, you know, they had Donald Trump last minute stumping for him yesterday in Indiana.

Over the phone.

No he didn't.

But still, I mean and so yeah, I think he'll still hold on but close.

Yeah I think it'll be a lot closer than people think.

Not out of the question that McCormick can pull off an upset.

But certainly Braun has the advantage.

I think it's Braun, and I still think he hits it by double digits.

I think the latest poll that I think the latest poll still shows that.

And then, you know, I look at back when Holcomb ran against Greg, right, 100 days at risk and he still won by six.

I don't think Braun is quite that vulnerable.

But whether he's in trouble.

Like a month old.

I think it was October 20th.

Eighth, I think.

Well.

I think they're looking at one.

Good for McCormick.

And I think that it has been so incredible to see the momentum that she has picked up in the last couple of months.

I think she's got an all star team working behind her.

She is resonating with Hoosiers.

Every single one of her debate performances hit.

She showed up strong and she, you know, a year ago we were like, you know, we had a much different conversation about how this gubernatorial, race would go.

And I think she can pull it off.

Until the Democrat wins statewide in Indiana.

Again, I'm not picking a Democrat to win statewide and again, again.

So I think Mike Brown a win very quickly.

AG race.

Jon, first.

the incumbent Todd Rokita.

Rokita I'm going with Destiny strong candidate.

Rokita.

And then lastly, can Democrats House Democrats break the super majority in the House?

Niki.

No, no.

Jon.

They'll cut down but won't accomplish it.

But I you will beat Michigan State.

I think this is their best opportunity just because the there's not as many incumbents.

So I think if they do it they do it this year.

But I think they do it.

I want to see.

It for seats.

That's hard to do in one cycle.

I don't I don't think they I think they pick up the don't.

Pick up two.

Yeah.

That's Indiana Week In Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Schrock.

Republican Chris Mitchum, 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.

Make sure you vote and join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

(Music) The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelist.

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