State senator pledges to fight against criminalizing homelessness in bill
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana's Senate Bill 197 as it stands Wednesday afternoon makes "street camping" illegal and a jailable offense, said state Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette.
"It's coming out," Alting said Wednesday afternoon about the House's amendment to make sleeping on public land or on sidewalks a Class C misdemeanor. "(The bill's author) agrees with me that is not the correct way to handle homelessness.
"We're a society of compassion."
As the bill currently reads, sleeping or camping on publicly owned property becomes a Class C misdemeanor.
An officer can warn those found sleeping or camping on publicly owned land. If the person is living on a sidewalk or a public right of way, they have 24 hours to move, based on the current version of the bill. If they are camped on publicly owned lands that are not on a right of way, the person must move within 72 hours of being warned.
Failure to move is a Class C misdemeanor, and a conviction can carry a possible sentence up to 60 days in jail and a fine up to $500, according to Indiana law.
Officers who sense there is a mental health issue can take the person to be evaluated. They also can give the homeless a ride to facility that will help the person such as a crisis intervention center, according to the version of the bill as of Wednesday afternoon.
Originally, the bill addressed problems surrounding unsafe buildings and the property owners' responsibilities. But after the House amendment, it criminalizes homelessness, Alting said.
"For whatever reason, these folks are homeless," Tippecanoe County Sheriff Bob Goldsmith said Wednesday morning. "Now they want to criminalize homelessness.
"I foresee this being a problem when we're filling our jails with homeless people," Goldsmith said. "That's not good use of our resources."
Alting said the Senate likely will vote in the coming days to remove the "street camping" portion of the bill.
When that happens, the bill will go to reconciliation, where members of both chambers of the General Assembly will hammer out their differences so that the bill can be approved and sent to the governor's desk for his signature or his veto.
Alting is on the reconciliation committee for the Senate.
He said he's hearing that the House members on the reconciliation committee might push for wording that makes it illegal to sleep on the street or sidewalk, while not pushing the issue of homelessness camps on publicly owned lands.
Alting said we're a free society, and homelessness should not be criminalized.
Reach Ron Wilkins at rwilkins@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @RonWilkins2.
This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Sen. Alting pledges to fight against criminalizing homelessness in bill
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
43 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senate Republicans want to trim some of Trump's populist tax cuts
WASHINGTON -- Even before the House passed the sweeping bill carrying President Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, Senate Republicans made it clear that they hoped to make major changes to the legislation before the GOP was done muscling it through Congress. Several have wanted to pare back the cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, that House Republicans envisioned in the version of the legislation that they approved late last month. A handful have sought to salvage tax credits incentivizing clean energy projects that the House measure would repeal. Many have pushed to grant companies prized tax breaks for the long run, not just for a few years, as their colleagues across the Capitol opted to do. The problem senators face is that each of these changes would be expensive. At $2.4 trillion, the cost of the legislation that barely passed the House is already huge. So Senate Republicans are now hunting for ways to save money, a hazardous task that could involve shaving the ambitions of their colleagues in the House or the White House. On the chopping block are some of Trump's favorite parts of the bill, like not taxing overtime. Republican lawmakers have long been skeptical of some of the president's tax ideas, with the view that the populist policies will not spur the economy like traditional supply-side conservatism can. 'I think it all comes down to what we've got to pay for,' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to pay for pro-growth policies.' The debate is in some ways a classic one on Capitol Hill, where throughout history and without regard to political party, senators have been reluctant to defer to their colleagues in the House, and vice versa. 'It's the Senate, so the Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do, and that's a good process,' Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said at a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, where he warned that his chamber would pass a bill 'markedly different' from the House measure, pushing enactment of the package well past his party's July 4 deadline. To top Senate Republicans, the most economically powerful tax cuts incentivize companies to make new investments and conduct research. Accelerated depreciation schedules, though, do not grab political attention the way Trump's promises for 'no tax on tips' did, so the House version of the bill only included the business tax breaks through 2029. Senate Republicans want to make the business write-offs a permanent feature of the tax code, a change that they and some economists believe would help encourage more companies to expand. As one way to cover that cost, Senate Republicans are looking at ways to further curb eligibility for a tax cut for overtime pay, including by setting a lower income ceiling for the break and by more strictly defining what counts as overtime, lawmakers said. 'Obviously, there's a lot of dials, whether you're talking about no tax on tips, overtime, any of those,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. 'How many years did they go? At what level do they stop?' Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, a former car dealer, wants to tighten the House plan for allowing Americans to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on car loans, which would apply to vehicles made in the United States, including used and new cars, as well as all-terrain vehicles and recreational vehicles. Moreno is proposing to limit the tax break, one of Trump's campaign promises, just to loans for new cars. 'We save a lot of money. An RV? Motorcycles? ATVs?' he said. 'That's not the idea; the idea is to help working Americans be able to afford a car.' Senate Republicans are searching for cuts because of growing concern among some conservatives, as well as on Wall Street, about the bill's impact on the country's fiscal situation. While paring back some of Trump's campaign promises could help keep the cost of the legislation near what it was in the House, some lawmakers are calling for much deeper spending cuts. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has been loudly calling for the legislation, which already includes roughly $1.8 trillion in spending reductions, to slash trillions more. His complaints won him a meeting with top White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance, at the Capitol this week. Johnson's pitch is to remove all of Trump's new tax priorities from the bill and instead focus the legislation exclusively on extending expiring tax cuts from 2017, cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling. Republicans could then tackle White House priorities, and further spending cuts, in a second piece of legislation, Johnson argues. 'You can't do it in one fell swoop. I don't want to criticize what has been done; I want to support what's been done,' he said. 'But I absolutely -- I can't accept that this is the new norm. We need another bite of the apple in this Congress.' Of course, jettisoning much of the president's agenda from the legislation is a tall order, and White House officials have been making the case for the House measures to cut taxes on tips and overtime and for older Americans. 'No Tax on Overtime and No Tax on Tips are presidential priorities that 80 million Americans voted for in November,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'They will remain in this historic piece of legislation in order to deliver the largest tax cut in history.' There are other sources of money tempting Senate Republicans. Some are considering cuts to Medicare, though changes to the health care program for older Americans comes with substantial political risks. Then there is the state and local tax deduction, often called SALT. In the House, a small group of Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California demanded that the legislation include an increase to the $10,000 cap on the deduction. They ultimately won an agreement to set the new limit at $40,000, an expensive change that would largely benefit homeowners in areas with high taxes. While the change was necessary to win the support of blue-state Republicans in the House, senators are less committed to the policy. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the majority leader, recently remarked at the White House that 'there really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue.' At the same time, House Republicans committed to more SALT relief have warned that changing the House agreement could scuttle the entire package. But some Republican senators cannot help but think that money earmarked for a higher SALT cap could have a better use. 'There's a lot of things we could do with that,' said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
