Indiana state budget deal: Cigarette taxes go up, public health funding goes down
Show Caption
Indiana lawmakers and Gov. Mike Braun have reached a deal on the two-year state budget that's slimmer than what they began with ― but boosted by a $2 increase in the cigarette tax.
Legislative leaders had to go back to the drawing board last week after the latest revenue forecast showed a $2 billion drop in expected revenue over the course of the upcoming biennium. This new version cuts public health funding by more than half, dips a bit more into reserves, and adds new revenue from the tobacco taxes, which amount to about $800 million over the biennium.
They presented the outlines of the deal in a press briefing the afternoon of April 23, but the actual budget has not yet been posted. Lawmakers will likely vote on the final budget the evening of April 24.
"We used to think that when you were relatively flush with cash, that's a challenging budget to craft, and maybe harder than when you're short with cash. I'm not sure that I feel that anymore," Senate Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said. "Trying to come up with a way to fund the budget with a $2 billion shortfall in the official forecast is, frankly, one of the more challenging things I think we've ever done."
The massive difference in the April forecast compared to December stems from a number of federal policy actions, from tariffs impacting trade and the stock market to deep federal spending cuts. It also partly reflects a return to normal revenues following a period of exceedingly high revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic era.
New revenue in the budget
Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka, said the final budget increases the cigarette tax by $2 a pack, which would take the tax from $1 to $3 a pack. He said the tax on other tobacco products will also increase "by the same percentage," which would be a tripling.
The roughly $400 million per year that this will raise will go entirely to the Medicaid budget, he said.
This is something that advocacy groups and the Indiana Chamber, specifically, have advocated for a long time as a way to raise revenue while discouraging people from tobacco use. The House has pitched it in the budget a few times, but the idea has usually died in the Senate. Democrats, too, have suggested it.
"Along with revenue comes a really pretty good public policy that was going to help persuade people to either not start smoking or stop smoking at the same time," Bray acknowledged. "So I think everybody expects that number will decrease over time. But that's a good thing, because we think it means we have fewer smokers."
What is getting cut
Without seeing the specifics of the bill or its fiscal analysis yet, here are some cuts leaders described:
Funding for county public health departments, which focus on preventative health care and education, will be funded at $40 million a year, down from $100 million a year.
The House wanted to expand the school voucher program to be universal in this budget, and the Senate didn't. They will both get their wish: Universal vouchers will kick in during the second year only.
Higher education funding will get slashed an additional 5%, as will the repair and rehabilitation budget, which pays for capital projects.
They "did away with some of those" commissions who haven't met in a while and had "big cash balances." They didn't specify which ones.
The new deal also dips into reserves more. While the Senate and the House budgets proposed leaving roughly 12-13% of the budget in reserves, this one will leave "a little north of 10%," Bray said. That could equate to a difference of about half a billion dollars, depending on the exact percentages.
The decision to cut public health spending while at the same time expanding voucher options for the richest families is one of the largest disappointments for Democrats, Rep. Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, said.
"Is that making Indiana healthy again? I think it's making us extremely vulnerable," he said.
Bray said that close to half of the money counties got in 2024 went unspent, so he thinks some counties are still trying to roll out their programs.
"While that's a cut I'm sure they'll be disappointed in, they're also continuing to try to build this up," he said. "We want to continue to try to invest in that."
Overall, the state budget will grow 0.8% in 2026 and another 0.1% in 2027. By comparison, local governments are projected to have 1.6% increases in the first year and 5.1% in the second year.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."