AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGAINST
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
A LAWSUIT AGAINST INDIANA'S
MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENT.
PLUS, CONNIE LAWSON ON ELECTION
SECURITY MONEY AND MORE ON
INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE
WEEK ENDING SEPTEMBER 27TH,
2019.
♪♪
>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS
>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS
MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS
OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING
STATIONS, AND BY ICEMILLER,
BUILT ON A 100-PLUS YEAR
FOUNDATION OF LEGAL SERVICE,
ICEMILLER IS A FULL SERVICE LAW
FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING
CLIENTS STAY AHEAD OF A CHANGING
WORLD, WORKING TO DEVELOP AN
UNDERSTANDING OF EACH CLIENT'S
NEEDS TO HELP BUILD, GROW AND
PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS. MORE AT
ICEMILLER.COM. #
THIS WEEK, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY
PELOSI ANNOUNCED THE LAUNCH OF
WHAT MANY IN HER PARTY HAVE LONG
ADVOCATED FOR: AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP.
PELOSI'S HISTORIC MOVE COMES
AFTER CONTROVERSY OVER A PHONE
CALL TRUMP HAD WITH THE NEWLY
ELECTED UKRANIAN LEADER IN JULY
AND REPORTING THAT THE PRESIDENT
PRESSURED HIM TO INVESTIGATE
POLITICAL RIVAL JOE BIDEN.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): THE
PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
TRUMP HAS CALLED THE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST HIM "RIDICULOUS" AND A
"WITCH HUNT." IN A RECAP OF THAT
PHONE CALL RELEASED BY THE WHITE
HOUSE, TRUMP NOTES AT THE OUTSET
THAT "WE DO A LOT FOR UKRAINE."
HE ASKS UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT
ZELENSKIY ABOUT A "FAVOR," LATER
GOING ON TO TELL HIM "I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE
SITUATION IN UKRAINE" AND THE
BIDENS.
INDIANA'S CONGRESSIONAL
DELEGATION IS SPLIT ALONG PARTY
LINES ON THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
WHAT NOW?
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, STATEHOUSE
REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE
JOURNAL GAZETTE.
I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING
STATEHOUSE REPORTER, BRANDON
SMITH.
ANN DELANEY, DOES THE FORMAL
LAUNCH OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
CHANGE MUCH?
>> OH, I THINK WE HAVE A
QUALITATIVE CHANGE HERE. I MEAN,
WE'RE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THIS
ADMINISTRATION IS CORRUPT, AND
WE'VE KNOWN IT IS INCOMPETENT
AND WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT LIES
HABITUALLY. BUT THIS IS THE
FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE IT FROM
HIS LIPS TO A LEADER OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY ASKING FOR A,
QUOTE, FAVOR, UNQUOTE, TO DIG
UP, OR MANUFACTURE DIRT AGAINST
THE SON OF A POTENTIAL OPPONENT.
THAT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND, THAT
VIOLATES SO MANY DIFFERENT LAWS,
IT'S DIFFICULT TO ENUMERATE THEM
ALL. AND IT'S VERY EASY FOR
VOTERS TO UNDERSTAND. SO, WE'VE
HAD A QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT
APPROACH, AND THE WHITE HOUSE
RECOGNIZED THAT. BECAUSE THE
WHITE HOUSE WENT TO COVER IT UP
RIGHT AWAY. THE STAFF PEOPLE
UNDERSTOOD THAT WHAT THEY HAD IN
THEIR HANDS THERE WAS
RADIOACTIVE. AND WE DON'T KNOW
HOW MANY MORE OF THOSE RADIO
ACTIVE BOMBS HAVE BEEN COVERED
UP BY THE WHITE HOUSE BASED ON
THE CONTACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT
OR VICE PRESIDENT HAD WITH
FOREIGN LEADERS. I THINK THIS
MAKES IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
THIS IS THE KIND OF ACTIVITY
THAT YOU EXPECT FROM THUGS, OR
FROM ORGANIZED CRIME. YOU DON'T
EXPECT IT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND IT CANNOT
GO WITHOUT BEING TRIED.
>> WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IS THE
POLITICAL MAKE-UP OF CONGRESS,
WHILE DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY
IN THE HOUSE, AND HAVE ENOUGH TO
SUPPORT AN INQUIRY AND PROBABLY
IMPEACHMENT. YOU DON'T HAVE
THOSE NUMBERS IN THE SENATE.
DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING?
>> I DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS HAVE
ANY CREDIBILITY ON THE
IMPEACHMENT ARGUMENT. CALLING
FOR ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES SINCE
PRACTICALLY INAUGURATION DAY.
THE FACT THEY MAY THINK THIS IS
THE MOST CREDITABLE DOESN'T
CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS
POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT. THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
THROUGHOUT HISTORY BEGAN WITH
HOUSE VOTING TO INSTRUCT THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO BEGIN
THAT PROCEEDING, TO OUTLINE THE
TERMS, THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE
COMMITTEE MUST INVESTIGATE.
NANCY PELOSI DOESN'T WANT THAT
VOTE. UNLIKE PREVIOUS VOTES
WHICH FURTHER UNDERMINES THE
FACT THIS IS A POLITICAL EFFORT.
I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT THIS IS
THE MOST DEMOCRATIC PARTY THING
EVER THAT THE ONE IMPEACHMENT
ISSUE THEY PICKED INDICTS THEIR
OWN FRONTRUNNER, WHO IS RUNNING
ON ELECTABILITY AND THE ABILITY
TO BEAT DONALD TRUMP. BECAUSE
YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE CALL TO
THE UKRAINIAN LEADER WITHOUT
TALKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN AND THE
FACT THAT HIS SON IS UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR WORKING FOR A
COMPANY THAT JOE BIDEN WAS
INVOLVED WITH.
>> NOBODY SAID HUNTER BIDEN DID
ANYTHING WRONG. ARE YOU
DEFENDING WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID?
YOU DOESN'T WANT TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, DO YOU.
>> ON TO YOU, JON.
>> I DO WANT TO ASK THIS
QUESTION. REPUBLICAN
EE -- OFFICIALS ARE GOING TO BE
ASKED.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> IF DRASTIC HAD NOT TALKED
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND THEY
OPPOSED WHAT DONALD TRUMP HAS
DONE FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT OR
CHARACTER, OR PERFORMANCE IN
OFFICE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE A
LOT MORE CREDIBILITY THAN
JUMPING FROM STORMY DANIELS TO
NAME YOUR ISSUE TO THE UKRAINIAN
LEADER.
>> THERE ARE SO MANY.
>> TO THIS END, I WANT TO ASK
ABOUT THE SORT OF POLITICAL
QUESTION, WHICH IS PRESUMING
THAT DONALD TRUMP IS STILL
RUNNING FOR REELECTION IN 2020.
RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO REASON TO
THINK THAT IS NOT TRUE.
>> START THAT RUMOR.
>> HOW DOES THIS IMPACT HIS
CHANCES OF RE-ELECTION?
DOES IT REALLY CHANGE IT?
>> I THINK IT IMPROVES IT.
ELIZABETH WARREN IS IN THE
DRIVER SEAT.
>> IT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM IN ONE
WAY. AND YOUR POINT WAS RIGHT ON
TARGET, BRANDON, THAT IS THAT
THE MAKEUP OF CONGRESS IS NOT
GOING TO CHANGE. SO, IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD, AFTER SOME SORT OF
INVESTIGATION, CHANCES ARE WE
WILL SEE AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE,
AND IT WILL PREVAIL IN THE
HOUSE. BARRING HUGE SURPRISE, HE
DID NOT BE CONVICTED IN THE
SENATE. SO BASICALLY, IT WILL BE
THE BILL CLINTON. I'M NOT TRYING
TO EQUATE THE TWO.
>> GOOD.
>> BILL CLINTON HAD A BIT OF A
BUMP WITH HIS CORE CONSTITUENCY,
WITH THE FACTION THAT SAID
THEY'RE TRYING TO MESS OVER OUR
GUY. I'M JUST SAYING THE
POLITICAL REALITY IS HERE, I'M
NOT SAYING WHAT IS RIGHT OR
WRONG. AND THEN, IF IN FACT THE
SENATE VOTE GOES THAT WAY, HE
CAN SAY, AS HE DID WITH THE
ROBERT MUELLER REPORT, I'VE BEEN
VINDICATED. AND, AGAIN, THERE'S
NO APPRECIATION FOR NUANCE IN
ANY OF THIS. WHEN YOU PAINT IN
BROAD STROKES, THAT'S THE
APPROACH.
>> LET ME ASK THE POLITICAL
QUESTION, DOES THIS ROLL
DOWNHILL BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT
NOVEMBER IN EITHER DIRECTION?
>> I THINK IT DEPENDS. WE NOW
FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINT, WHICH IDENTIFIES
OTHER PEOPLE THAT CAN BE
WITNESSES, IT KIND OF DEPENDS IF
THERE'S MORE OF AN INVESTIGATION
TO WHAT WE SEE, ALSO BE
INTERESTING WHERE MIKE PENCE
FALLS INTO ALL THIS. HE IS
OBVIOUSLY STANDING BY HIS MAN,
SO TO SPEAK. HE DID ENCOURAGE
THE PRESIDENT NOT TO RELEASE
THAT CALL. SO, I MEAN, WE'LL
STILL SEE HOW HE FALLS OUT IN
ALL THIS.
>> WE'LL SEE, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT
THE SENATORS WHO DON'T VOTE TO
IMPEACH.
>> NO GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE A
VOTE IN THE SENATE.
>> THAT MAY BE. EVEN SO --
>> OR THE HOUSE.
>> NO GUARANTEE IS VOTE IN THE
HOUSE.
>> BUT IF THE EVIDENCE...
>> BECAUSE SHE KNOWS AND
REMEMBERS IN SWING DISTRICTS
THAT TOOK THEM FROM GOP...THIS
IS NOT POPULAR.
>> IT WAS THE MEMBERS IN SWING
DISTRICTS WHO DID THE LETTER TO
THE EDITOR ASKING FOR THE
INQUIRY, THEY THINK THIS CONDUCT
IS SO EGREGIOUS.
TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.
EACH WEEK WE POSE AN
UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL
QUESTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR
ICEMILLER E-MAIL AND TEXT
ALERTS.
THIS WEEK'S QUESTION:
HOW WILL THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
IMPACT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
RE-ELECTION CHANCES?
A. IT HELPS HIM.
B. IT HURTS HIM.
C. IT WILL HAVE LITTLE TO NO
EFFECT.
LAST WEEK'S QUESTION:
WHO WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC
NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR IN 2020?
A. WOODY MYERS.
28%. 47%, JOSH OWNS. 25% SOMEONE
ELSE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART
IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR
AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.
A NEW LAWSUIT IS CHALLENGING
INDIANA'S WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE STATE'S MEDICAID EXPANSION
PROGRAM, HIP. INDIANA PUBLIC
BROADCASTING'S JILL SHERIDAN HAS
MORE.
MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN THREE OTHER
STATES. INDIANA'S GATEWAY TO
WORK PROGRAM LAUNCHED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR AND
PEOPLE HAD TO START REPORTING
WORK, SCHOOL OR VOLUNTEER HOURS
IN JULY.
HIP MEMBERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO
REPORT 80 HOURS A MONTH BY
JANUARY 2020. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS INCLUDING
CAREGIVERS OR MEDICALLY FRAIL
INDIVIDUALS.
IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT, INDIANA
GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB SAYS
INDIANA'S PROGRAM IS DIFFERENT.
HE SAYS IT INCLUDES, QUOTE,
“SUPPORTS AND PATHWAYS TO ENSURE
HOOSIERS CAN EASILY SKILL UP,
VOLUNTEER IN THEIR COMMUNITY, OR
GET A BETTER PAYING JOB.” MIKE
O'BRIEN, ARE THESE WORK
REQUIREMENTS IN JEOPARDY?
>> COULD BE. THE OTHER STATES
DID THROW IT OUT, INDIANA
STRUCTURED ITS PROGRAM
DIFFERENTLY. GAVE A LOT MORE
FLEXIBILITY IN HOW YOU MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS, A MUCH LONGER
RUN-UP, EDUCATION EFFORT FOR
COMPLIANCE, SO THE PEOPLE IN
THIS PROGRAM COULD WORK.
PHILOSOPHICALLY, I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
MEDICAID PROGRAM IN GENERAL, TGS
NOT PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN
MADE TO GO TO WORK, OR THE
DISABLED, OR ELDERLY FOR
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, IT IS
WORKING PEOPLE. AND IF WE'VE GOT
MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES FOR
PRESIDENT CALLING FOR MEDICARE
FOR ALL, OR A FULL EXPANSION, IF
THAT IS THE CASE, IT IS NOT
UNREASONABLE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO
GET THIS FREE BENEFIT, OR THIS
TAXPAYER PAID BENEFIT, THEN YOU
OUGHT TO PUT SOMETHING BACK IN,
WHETHER IT'S COMMUNITY SERVICE,
GO VOLUNTEER, OR GO GET A JOB
FOR 20 HOURS A WEEK, AND GIVE
BACK THAT WAY. WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO GO IN DIRECTION
WHERE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED
HEALTHCARE CONTINUES TO EXPAND.
AND IT'S NOT THE OLD VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS ANYMORE, PEOPLE
THINK OF WE'RE MAKING PEOPLE ON
MEDICAID GO TO WORK, WHAT ARE WE
DOING?
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
WAYS YOU CAN MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT, YOU DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE TO GET A JOB.
IT'S JOB TRAINING, VOLUNTEERING,
THINGS LIKE THAT.
DO ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS MAKE
THIS MORE PALATABLE?
>> BARELY. EVERY TIME I GET
REPUBLICANS WANTING TO DO
SOMETHING FOR THE POOR PEOPLE, I
WANT TO LIFT UP THE COVER TO SEE
WHAT IS THERE. YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT 100,000 PEOPLE AND YOU'RE
GOING TO ESTABLISH AN ENTIRE
BUREAUCRACY TO MONITOR IT. THAT
MONEY WOULD MUCH BETTER BE PUT
TO OTHER PURPOSES, LIKE, FOR
EXAMPLE, RAISING THE MINIMUM
WAGE SO PEOPLE HAVE INCENTIVE,
WHERE'S THE MARKET FORCE AT WORK
HERE?
WE HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT
WE'VE HAD, AND YET WE CAN'T
RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO MAKE
IT ATTRACTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO TRY
TO FIND WORK. INSTEAD WE WANT TO
HARASS THEM BECAUSE GOD FORBID
THEY GET SICK AND WE HAVE TO PAY
NOR IT. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THEY'RE OFF MEDICAID, HIGH
PRESSURE TENSION AND DIABETES
GET OUT OF CONTROL, AND THEY GO
TO EMERGENCY ROOMS, AND IT COST
US MORE. SO EVERY TIME THE
REPUBLICANS TRY TO DO SOMETHING,
ALL THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO
BASICALLY SLAP PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOW POOR AND SICK DOWN. AND I'M
GETTING A LITTLE TIRED OF IT,
FRANKLY.
>> ANY OF THESE OTHER STATES WHO
HAVE LAWSUITS AGAINST THEIR
PROGRAMS, THE GOVERNORS, AND
THOSE STATES, THE LEGISLATURES
WHO HAVE FACED A LOT OF
SCRUTINY. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT
AT ALL, HAVE WE?
>> NO. THE ROLLOUT HAS BEEN
EXTREMELY QUIET. A FEW STORIES
HERE AND THERE. I THINK THAT IS
PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE LARGE
NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS OR WAYS YOU
CAN FILL IT. I THINK WE'RE
GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE A LOT
OF SORT AVERAGE FOLKS OUT THERE
THINK, YOU KNOW, GOODNESS, YOU
KNOW, YES, MAYBE YOUR CURRENT
JOB DOESN'T WORK, BUT THERE'S SO
MANY JOBS OUT THERE THAT NEED TO
BE FILLED, AND IT'S ONLY 20
HOURS A WEEK. WE'RE NOT ASKING
THEM TO -- ON, WORK 60-HOUR
WEEKS AND NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE
THEIR FAMILY.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE INJURED OR WHATEVER WHO
HAVEN'T QUALIFIED FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY DISABILITY, WHICH IS
REALLY TOUGH TO DO. AND ARE IN A
POSITION TO WORK, AND EVEN IF
THEY WORK, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
WORKING FOR $7.25, OR MAYBE 8,
OR 9 AN HOUR, WITHOUT BENEFITS.
>> BUT DOES THE ARGUMENT NIKI
JUST MADE, THE IDEA OF ALL THE
DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN QUALIFY,
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK A FULL
TIME JOB IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO
GET THESE BENEFITS, DOES NA HELP
ERIC HOLCOMB IN THE COURT OF
PUBLIC OPINION WHEN HE RUNS FOR
RE-ELECTION?
>> IT PROBABLY DOES, FOR THE
REASONS THAT NIKI SPELLED OUT,
THE NOTION THAT SPORT OF THE
HOOSIER COMMON SENSE PHILOSOPHY
THAT YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FOR
FREE, YOU GOT TO HAVE SOME SKIN
IN THE GAME.
>> WE DO LOVE THAT PHRASE.
>> SO HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT.
>> LOOK, I'M TELLING YOU THE
REALITIES OF IT. I'M NOT TELLING
YOU MY OPINION. AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, OUR OPINIONS DON'T
MATTER, AND FRANKLY HOOSIER
VOTERS DOESN'T MATTER, THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, THE SAME JUDGE
WHO DECIDED THE KENTUCKY, BAM,
OR ARK, KENTUCKY AND NEW
HAMPSHIRE CASES. IF YOU READ
WHAT HE RULED, IN THOSE CASINGS,
IT WASN'T ABOUT HOW NICE THE
STATE WAS, OR HOW MEAN THE STATE
WAS, IT COMES DOWN TO WHETHER IT
WAS BASICALLY A THUMBING OF THE
NOSE, BASICALLY AT THE
STATUTE -- THE STATUTE THAT
CREATED THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.
SO, IT REALLY DOESN'T -- IF
THAT'S WHAT, UPON WHICH THE
PENDULUM UPON WHICH THIS HINGES
FOR HIM, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
SOMEONE SHOWS UP AT YOUR HOUSE
AND DRIVES YOU TO YOUR JOB, IT'S
STILL PROBLEMATIC.
>> A TECHNICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT.
>> ALL RENDERED MOOT BY THE U.S.
COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH ARE
HEARING OTHER STATE'S APPEALS.
>> IT PROBABLY WON'T BE THE
INDIANA CASE.
>> JUDGES MATTER MORE THAN WE
DO.
>> THEY GENERALLY DO.
>>
SECRETARY OF STATE CONNIE LAWSON
SAYS INDIANA LEGISLATORS
WOULDN'T PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
ELECTION SECURITY MEASURES AT
THE LEVEL SHE WANTED THOUGH SHE
SAYS HOOSIERS SHOULD STILL HAVE
CONFIDENCE THEIR VOTES ARE
SECURE.
ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF INDIANA
COUNTIES USE ELECTRONIC VOTING
MACHINES THAT EXPERTS SAY SHOULD
INCLUDE PAPER AUDIT TRAILS. THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIS YEAR
APPROPRIATED 10 MILLION DOLLARS
IN THE NEW STATE BUDGET FOR
ELECTION SECURITY WHICH WILL PAY
TO ADD THOSE PAPER TRAILS TO
JUST 10 PERCENT OF THE MACHINES
THAT NEED THEM BY NEXT YEAR.
LAWSON SAYS SHE INITIALLY ASKED
BUDGET WRITERS FOR MORE MONEY.
SECRETARY OF STATE CONNIE
LAWSON: BUT THEY TOLD US TO GET
REAL. SO, WE GOT REAL AND WE
TRIED TO HONE IT DOWN TO WHERE
IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET THE
DOLLARS IT WILL BE A DECADE
BEFORE ALL INDIANA VOTING
MACHINES THAT NEED PAPER TRAILS
GET THEM, UNLESS COUNTIES MOVE
FORWARD ON THEIR OWN.
NIKI KELLY, THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME LAWSON HAS SAID SHE WANTED
MORE MONEY THAN LAWMAKERS WOULD
PROVIDE. DOES THAT CHANGE THE
DISCUSSION AROUND THIS ISSUE?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. ULTIMATELY,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S HOW THE
BUDGET SYSTEMS BASICALLY WORKS.
EVERY SINGLE AGENCY WENT TO THEM
WANTING MORE MONEY, I'LL BET.
AND THEY HAD TO BE MORE
REALISTIC. THEY DIDN'T EVEN GIVE
DCS WHAT THEY WANTED.
>> TRUE.
>> I DO THINK THE REAL QUESTION
IS ONCE WE REALIZE WE HAVE ALL
THIS EXTRA MONEY, LIKE WHY
DIDN'T WE THROW SOME EXTRA MONEY
AT MAKING THESE MACHINES
CORRECT, OR MORE SECURE FOR THIS
YEAR INSTEAD OF BUILDING THE
SWINE BARN FOR -- OUT OF CASH,
INSTEAD OF BONDING.
>> DOES IT FALL LESS ON
LAWMAKERS WHO WOULDN'T FIND ROOM
IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS AND OTHER
THINGS, OR MORE ON WHY AREN'T WE
USING SOME OF THE $400 MILLION
SURPLUS?
>> IT'S A MIX. THERE ARE SOME
THAT DOUBT THERE IS ANY THREAT
TO THE SANCTITY OF OUR
ELECTIONS, SO THEY THINK THIS
IS...
>> OVERBLOWN.
>> THEN YOU HAVE THOSE WHO JUST
LOOK AT THE DEMANDS, AND THE
PRESSING NATURE OF SO MUCH
THINGS IN THIS STATE. DO YOU
GUARD AGAINST SOMETHING THAT,
OKAY, EVEN IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE
THERE WERE PROBLEMS, DO WE SPEND
A LOT OF MONEY TO GUARD AGAINST
THAT TO THE ENDth DEGREE, OR
TAKE A STEP AND DEAL WITH THE
OTHER FINANCIAL FRESHES AND
CHALLENGES WE FACE AS A STATE.
AND THEN I THINK YOU HAVE A FAIR
NUMBER WHO ARE JUST STILL
HOLDING ONTO THE HOPE THAT THE
FEDS COME IN OVER THE MOUNTAIN
TOP, RIDING THE HORSES OF RESCUE
AND DELIVER FEDERAL FUNDS.
$7.5 MILLION IN FEDERAL GRANT
MONEYS SHE'S USING. BUT I THINK
THERE ARE PEOPLE HOLDING OUT ON
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING
DON'T WORRY, STATES, WE GOT YOU
COVERED ON THIS.
>> CONNIE LAWSON POINTED OUT
MORE THAN ONCE THE COMPANIES WHO
MAKE THESE FOR INDIANA LITERALLY
COULDN'T MAKE ENOUGH TO PUT ON
EVERY MACHINE THAT NEEDS ONE BY
2020. BUT, I BET THEY COULD GET
TO LIKE HALF. AND THAT'S
$40 MILLION, WHICH IS ABOUT WHAT
WE SPENT ON -- WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO SPEND ON THE SWINE BARN. SO,
AGAIN, DOES THIS -- DOES THAT
NOT REFLECT WELL ON GOVERNOR
HOLCOMB'S PRIORITIES?
>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT GOING
ON HERE, I THINK IT'S A MIX OF
PEOPLE DISAGREE THERE WAS ANY
EVIDENCE THE ELECTION WAS
LITERALLY TAMPERED WITH, THAT
MACHINES IN MARION COUNTY, OR
HENDRICKS COUNTY, INDIANA,
WHEREVER WERE AT RISK OR
TAMPERED WITH. THERE'S
PRODUCTION ISSUES ON DELIVERING
THESE MACHINES. WE FORGET THE
FACT THAT WE TALK ABOUT THESE ON
THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AND WE'RE
ASKING 92 CLERKS AND COUNCILS
AND COMMISSIONERS TO ACTUALLY DO
THIS, AND ACTUALLY GET THIS DONE
IN TIME FOR MAY, WHICH IS A REAL
LIFT. WE FORGET IN THE NATIONAL,
ELECTIONS ARE RUN LOCALLY,
LARGELY ONE BY VOLUNTEERS, AND
THERE IS NOT BUY-IN THAT THE
PAPER TRAIL IS THE SECURE OPTION
ANYWAY. SOME AUDITABLE WAY.
>> IS THAT THE BIGGEST ISSUE?
WE CAN'T ALL AGREE ON EXACTLY
WHAT WE NEED?
>> NO. EVERYBODY AGREES HAVING A
PAPER TRAIL IS PREFERABLE. THERE
WAS EVIDENCE OF THE RUSSIANS
TRYING TO GET INTO EACH STATE
SYSTEM. THERE WAS EVIDENCE. I'M
NOT SAYING THAT THEY CHANGED THE
OUTCOME. NOW WE HAVE FOUR YEARS
ELAPSING, TOO. WHO KNOWS HOW
MUCH BETTER THEY'VE GOTTEN. BY
THE WAY, MARION COUNTY HAS A
PAPER BACKUP, WHICH IS WHY
THEY'RE NOT AT RISK. BUT, WHAT
YOU HAVE WITH THIS IS AN
UNWILLINGNESS, THEY THINK THAT
THE STATE'S A BANK. THAT'S WHAT
THEY THINK. THEY COLLECT THIS
MONEY AND HOARD IT AND SAY LOOK
HOW GREAT WE ARE, WE HAVE ALL
THIS MONEY IN THE BANK, AND
THERE ARE THESE PRESSING NEEDS,
AND I THINK THE SANCTITY OF THE
ELECTION IS A PRETTY DARN
PRESSING NEED, AND WE KNOW IT
CAN BE ADDRESSED. AND IF THERE'S
ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THOSE
MACHINES, I'LL BET YOU THEY CAN
GET DONE. THEY MAY NOT GET DONE
BY THE PRIMARY, BUT CERTAINLY BY
THE GENERAL ELECTION.
>>
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL CURTIS
HILL SAYS HE SUPPORTS A PROPOSED
MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR SETTLEMENT
WITH DRUGMAKER PURDUE PHARMA.
MORE THAN TWO DOZEN STATE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND MORE THAN
TWO THOUSAND CITIES NATIONWIDE
REACHED A TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT
WITH THE OXYCONTIN MAKER ACCUSED
BY MANY OF PLAYING A MAJOR ROLE
IN THE COUNTRY'S OPIOID ABUSE
EPIDEMIC.
IN A STATEMENT, CURTIS HILL'S
OFFICE SAYS THE DEAL WOULD HOLD
PURDUE PHARMA AND ITS OWNERS,
THE SACKLER FAMILY, DIRECTLY
ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT THE MONEY
WILL FLOW TO THE PEOPLE WHO MOST
NEED IT.
HILL'S STATEMENT SAYS THE
ALTERNATIVE IS AN UNCERTAIN AND
LIKELY LENGTHY LEGAL BATTLE.
BUT A COUPLE DOZEN OTHER STATE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL OPPOSE THE
DEAL, DECRYING IT AS WOEFULLY
INADEQUATE.
JON SCHWANTES, IS IT BETTER TO
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN OR HOLD
OUT FOR MORE?
>> IF I KNEW THE ANSWER, I WOULD
BE AT THE CASINO MAKING MORE
MONEY THAN I AM HERE.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. I
DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN REALLY
ASSIGN A LOT OF POLITICAL
MOTIVATION HERE. I WILL SAY THAT
THERE ARE A LOT OF THEORIES
GOING AROUND. IF YOU LOOK AT HOW
ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY HAVE BROKEN DOWN ON THIS
ISSUE, IT'S, GEE, LIKE
EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR COUNTRY,
ABOUT 50/50 SEEMS TO BE SPLIT. I
THINK 20 OR SO ARE SUPPORTIVE,
YOU HAVE 24, 25, COUPLE DOZEN.
>> ALMOST 50/50.
>> THEY DO TEND TO BE
REPUBLICANS FOR DEMOCRATS
AGAINST, WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS IN
EACH. TWO OTHER SWITCHES. NOW
THERE HAS BEEN REPORTING
SUGGESTING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS IN SUPPORT
THAT PURDUE PHARMA AND MEMBERS
OF THE SACKLER FAMILY HAD DONE
WHAT THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S ASSOCIATION, BUT THEN
THEY'VE ALSO GIVEN A LESSER
AMOUNT TO THE DEMOCRATIC
COUNTERPART TO THAT. I SUPPOSE
YOU CAN FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING
FOR. BUT, THE REALITY OF THIS IS
WE SAW THIS WEEK ALSO THAT IF IN
FACT AS PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS, PURDUE PHARMA IS
GOING FOR, THEY SAID IF, AS PART
OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS,
THERE'S NOT BASICALLY A BLOCKADE
PUT UP BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL WHO
DON'T SUPPORT THIS, THERE MIGHT
NOT BE ANY MONEY TO PAY THE
$3 BILLION...
>> DOES THAT PLAY HEAVILY INTO
THIS?
>> IT SURE DOES. I DON'T THINK
I'M QUALIFIED TO KNOW, I DON'T
KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS
SETT
SETTLEMENT. IF TURNED DOWN IT
WOULD BE A PROTRACTED BATTLE.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT BIRD IN
THE HAND VERSUS THE FUTURE, I
DON'T SEE IT AS COMPLETELY OUT
OF THE REALM TO TAKE IT.
>> THIS IS NOT THE STATES AND
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING
AFTER THE CIGARETTE COMPANIES.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S ONE COMPANY,
AND THEY ARE IN BANKRUPTCY
ALREADY. SO IS IT BEST TO JUST
GET WHAT YOU CAN NOW?
>> DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU
CAN PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL
AND GO AFTER THE FAMILY WHOSE
ASSETS ARE STILL OUT THERE. YOU
DON'T KNOW WHETHER TAKING THE
MONEY AND RUN OR SUING IS THE
RIGHT WAY, AND YOU WON'T KNOW
UNTIL THIS IS OVER. IT'S
INTERESTING TO ME THAT HE ALWAYS
FINDS LITIGATION ADVANCES HIS
RELIGIOUS AGENDA AND BACKS AWAY
FROM OTHER THINGS. I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER HE'S DOING THE RIGHT
MOVE OR NOT. AND WE WON'T KNOW
FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
>> IS THAT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM,
WE CAN'T KNOW FOR A REALLY LONG
TIME UNTIL ALL THIS SHAKES OUT?
>> AND PEOPLE KEEP COMPARING
THIS TO THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS STILL BEING
PAID OUT OVER 20 YEARS LATER.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE COMPANIES
STILL EXIST, MANUFACTURE PRODUCT
AND CONTINUE TO FUND THAT
SETTLEMENT THAT WAY. THAT'S NOT
THE CASE HERE.
>>
A NEW REPORT FROM CHALKBEAT
SHOWS SOME INDIANA SCHOOLS MAY
BE ARTIFICIALLY INCREASING THEIR
GRADUATION RATES BY MASKING
DROPOUTS AS STUDENTS
TRANSITIONING TO HOME SCHOOLING.
CHALKBEAT'S REPORT LOOKED AT
2018 STUDENT DATA FROM AROUND
THE STATE. IT FOUND THAT MORE
THAN HALF OF THE 37 HUNDRED
HOOSIER STUDENTS RECORDED AS
MOVING TO HOME-SCHOOL WERE IN
JUST 61 OF THE STATE'S 507 HIGH
SCHOOLS, SCHOOLS WHERE THE RATIO
OF THOSE LEAVING TO HOME-SCHOOL
TO STUDENTS EARNING DIPLOMAS WAS
MUCH HIGHER THAN THE STATE
AVERAGE.
CHALKBEAT SAYS THOSE NUMBERS
SUGGEST THE STATE'S METHOD FOR
CALCULATING GRADUATION RATES -
AND ITS “LAX REGULATION OF HOME
SCHOOLING” - IS OBSCURING
DROPOUT ISSUES AT SOME HOOSIER
HIGH SCHOOLS.
MIKE O'BRIEN, WILL THIS PROMPT
GREATER OVERSIGHT OF HOME
SCHOOLING?
>> MAYBE NOT HOME-SCHOOLING
INITIALLY, BUT I THINK IT WILL
PROMPT GREATER INSIGHT INTO
WHAT -- HOW WE DEFINE A STUDENT
DROPPING OUT, HOW WE DEFINE A
STUDENT TRANSITIONING TO HOME
SCHOOL. WE'RE CLEARLY NOT
SERVING THESE KIDS DROPPING OUT
WITH NO INTENT TO BE
HOME-SCHOOLED. THE MOM IN THE
START OF THIS ARTICLE SAID, HOW
AM I GOING TO HOME SCHOOL THIS
KID?
THIS IS A POOR FAMILY ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF INDIANAPOLIS. I
HAD NO PLANS TO HOME SCHOOL,
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
CLEARLY THAT NEEDS TO BE
UNCOVERED.
>> YEAH. HOW DEEP SHOULD THIS
KIND OF SHOULD ANY REFORM OUT OF
THIS GO?
>> WHEN YOU START WITH THIS, YOU
LOOK AT THE FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES
THAT ARE COOKING THE DATA TO
MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK BETTER SO
THEY KEEP GETTING STATE FUNDS,
IT'S NOT THE HOME-SCHOOLING AS
MUCH AS IT IS THESE FOUR-PROFIT
GROUPS.
>> THERE ARE MORE SCHOOLS
THAN --
>> THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THE BULK OF
THEM WERE ALSO FOR-PROFIT
INSTITUTIONS, LIKE THE ONE THAT
WAS FEATURED IN THE STAR
ARTICLE, WAS THE ONE TAKEN OVER
FROM IPS BECAUSE THE STATE SAYS
WE'VE GOT TO GIVE THESE TO
FOR-PROFIT --
>> AND THAT'S PART OF A LARGER
MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF MAYBE WE
NEED TO START TAKING A CLOSER
EYE ON CHARTER SCHOOLS.
>> MAYBE.
>> THAT POINT IS IMPORTANT.
YOU'VE GOT 61 SCHOOLS, TWO OF
THEM WERE RUN BY FOUR-PROFIT AND
TAKE-OVER SCHOOLS. DOE IS DOING
THE DATA ON THAT.
>> BUT THE OTHER 59 WERE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS THAT DO THEIR OWN
REPORTING, AND THE DEPARTMENT
DOESN'T LOOK AT THAT DATA.
>> NO, THEY JUST GET IT.
>> THEY JUST PLUG IT INTO THE
ACCOUNTABILITY
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 FORT WAYNE JOURNAL
GAZETTE.
IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS
PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT
WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY
YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON
DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE
WFYI APP.
I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA
PUBLIC BROADCASTING.
JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT
CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.
♪♪
>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS
>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS
MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS
OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING
STATIONS, AND BY ICEMILLER,
BUILT ON A 100-PLUS YEAR
FOUNDATION OF LEGAL SERVICE.
ICEMILLER IS A FULL SERVICE LAW
FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING
CLIENTS STAY AHEAD OF THE
CHANGING WORLD, WORKING TO
DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF EACH
CLIENT'S NEEDS TO HELP BUILD,
GROW AND PROTECT THEIR
INTERESTS.
MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE
SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.
INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI
PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH
INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING