Porter County Council member sponsors signs against tolls on highways
Porter County Council Vice President Red Stone, R-1st, is taking his displeasure with the idea of Indiana's interstates becoming toll roads to the people by paying for opposition billboards in the region.
The Republican-controlled Indiana House approved House Bill 1461 by a vote of 72 to 21 and referred it to the Indiana Senate Feb. 21. Sponsored by State Rep. Jim Pressel, R-Rolling Prairie, the bill would give authority to Gov. Mike Braun to pursue federal authorization for tolling.
The digest of the bill on the state legislative website reads: 'Allows the Indiana department of transportation (department) to submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration for a waiver to toll lanes on interstate highways. Provides that, if such a request for a waiver is granted, the general assembly is not required to enact a statute for the IFA to carry out certain activities related to the toll road project.'
Braun voted in favor of the first iteration of the statute in 2017 when he was a member of the house. Former Gov. Eric Holcomb did not act on it. The current version of the bill removes a requirement that interstates not be tolled if located within 75 miles of an existing tollway like the Indiana Toll Road.
The bold yellow and black billboards read: 'Attention Hoosiers New Tolls Equals Highway Robbery!!' with 'Paid for by Red Stone' along the bottom. A digital sign on Interstate 94 by Burr Street in Lake County flashes the message every nine seconds, while a double-sided billboard on Indiana 49 in Chesterton near Strack & VanTil is also up, soon to be joined by others at the corner of Calumet Avenue and Indian Boundary Road in Chesterton, and Interstate 65 in Porter County.
'Somebody had to do it,' Stone said of the billboards he's paying for, 'because I feel so strongly about the issues. In my opinion, they're going to toll it and they're going to sell it and the money goes downstate and Northwest Indiana doesn't see a dime.
'It's going to hurt blue-collar people. It's going to hurt everybody, actually. Blue collar. White collar. And I just want downstate to be aware.'
Stone said his opposition is by no means a condemnation of Pressel. 'I think Jim was just giving the governor the option of the whole state,' Stone said of the bill. Pressel, who represents portions of LaPorte and Starke counties and chairs the Roads and Transportation Committee, did not respond to an interview request.
Porter County Board of Commissioners President Jim Biggs, R-North, thanked Stone for his efforts in a Facebook post Feb. 28. He not only said polling Indiana residents who had already paid to build and maintain local interstate highways was a poor idea but offered up a suggestion for the complicated need for more funding moving forward.
'State lawmakers need to take advantage of today's huge technological advancements and install a system that only charges out-of-state drivers for the benefit of driving on our busiest state highways, and if that's not possible, then charge our residents less,' he wrote in his post. 'If our state universities can do it, then why not INDOT?'
While some states do have differing rates for in- and out-of-state drivers, none charge for only out-of-state drivers. Michael Simpson, who just retired after 12 years as chair of the Porter County Republicans, isn't worried.
'It's not a fait accompli. It's not, 'Hey, we're going to toll the roads tomorrow.' Personally, I think we need to look at other avenues for our roads. I don't have an opinion unless the governor decides to do it.'
Stone said he's heard figures that the majority of Northwest Indiana's interstate highway drivers are not Hoosiers. He said there's been a flood of feedback in support of his signage and hasn't heard of anyone supporting more tolling. 'Everybody in Northwest Indiana does not want tolls. The people do not want this and that's a fact.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate expected to pass crypto bill without addressing Trump's investments
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to approve legislation Tuesday that would regulate a form of cryptocurrency known as stablecoins, the first of what is expected to be a wave of crypto legislation from Congress that the industry hopes will bolster its legitimacy and reassure consumers. The fast-moving legislation, which will be sent to the House for potential revisions, comes on the heels of a 2024 campaign cycle where the crypto industry ranked among the top political spenders in the country, underscoring its growing influence in Washington and beyond. Eighteen Democratic senators have shown support for the legislation as it has advanced, siding with the Republican majority in the 53-47 Senate. If passed, it would become the second major bipartisan bill to advance through the Senate this year, following the Laken Riley Act on immigration enforcement in January. Still, most Democrats oppose the bill. They have raised concerns that the measure does little to address President Donald Trump's personal financial interests in the crypto space. 'We weren't able to include certainly everything we would have wanted, but it was a good bipartisan effort,' said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., on Monday. She added, 'This is an unregulated area that will now be regulated.' Known as the GENIUS Act, the bill would establish guardrails and consumer protections for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. The acronym stands for 'Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins.' It's expected to pass Tuesday, since it only requires a simple majority vote — and it already cleared its biggest procedural hurdle last week in a 68-30 vote. But the bill has faced more resistance than initially expected. There is a provision in the bill that bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. But that prohibition does not extend to the president and his family, even as Trump builds a crypto empire from the White House. Trump hosted a private dinner last month at his golf club with top investors in a Trump-branded meme coin. His family holds a large stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that provides yet another avenue where investors are buying in and enriching the president's relatives. World Liberty has launched its own stablecoin, USD1. The administration is broadly supportive of crypto's growth and its integration into the economy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week said the legislation could help push the U.S. stablecoin market beyond $2 trillion by the end of 2028. Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase — the nation's largest crypto exchange and a major advocate for the bill — has met with Trump and praised his early moves on crypto. This past weekend, Coinbase was among the more prominent brands that sponsored a parade in Washington commemorating the Army's 250th anniversary — an event that coincided with Trump's 79th birthday. But the crypto industry emphasizes that they view the legislative effort as bipartisan, pointing to champions on each side of the aisle. 'The GENIUS Act will be the most significant digital assets legislation ever to pass the U.S. Senate,' Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said ahead of a key vote last week. 'It's the product of months of bipartisan work.' The bill did hit one rough patch in early May, when a bloc of Senate Democrats who had previously supported the bill reversed course and voted to block it from advancing. That prompted new negotiations involving Senate Republicans, Democrats and the White House, which ultimately produced the compromise version expected to win passage Tuesday. 'There were many, many changes that were made. And ultimately, it's a much better deal because we were all at the table,' Alsobrooks said. Still, the bill leaves unresolved concerns over presidential conflicts of interest — an issue that remains a source of tension within the Democratic caucus. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been among the most outspoken as the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, warning that the bill creates a 'super highway' for Trump corruption. She has also warned that the bill would allow major technology companies, such as Amazon and Meta, to launch their own stablecoins. If the stablecoin legislation passes the Senate on Tuesday, it still faces several hurdles before reaching the president's desk. It must clear the narrowly held Republican majority in the House, where lawmakers may try to attach a broader market structure bill — sweeping legislation that could make passage through the Senate more difficult. Trump has said he wants stablecoin legislation on his desk before Congress breaks for its August recess, now just under 50 days away.
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's Middle East dilemma could redefine the Republican Party
Advertisement Now, we may be watching another inflection point, one that could shape what the post-Trump GOP becomes. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up No, how Americans pay for prescription drugs has basically nothing to do with a war in the Middle East. That said, the political fallout might be very similar as once again the GOP establishment holds one view and the GOP grassroots holds another. As the emerging war between Israel and Iran is intensifying, so, too, is a divide among Republicans. It's not just about the conflict itself, but about what it means that it's happening under Trump's watch. After all, he ran for president three times on a platform of avoiding foreign wars, especially in the Middle East. By all accounts, Trump didn't seek this conflict. In fact, he had reportedly been exploring a deal to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and Advertisement For Trump and the Republicans who align with him the challenge is walking a line: being unequivocally pro-Israel, while remaining faithful to an 'America First' foreign policy that opposes getting entangled in another major war without a direct national interest. To understand how today's debate might matter down the line, it helps to revisit what happened in 2003. That year, fresh off strong midterm wins, Republicans saw an opportunity. Drug prices were soaring, and establishment Republicans like President George W. Bush and congressional leaders wanted to expand Medicare, but to do it through the private sector. Their goal was to undercut what they believed would be an eventual Democratic push for a fully government-run drug benefit. That the new program would begin distributing benefits just as Bush ran for reelection was not incidental; it was the point. Democrats opposed the bill, arguing it was a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. They were especially outraged by a provision that prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices. But the fiercest resistance came from within the GOP itself. Fiscal conservatives, like then-Representative Mike Pence, saw the plan as a massive expansion of government, no matter how Republican leadership spun it. The House passed the bill 216–215, but only after holding the vote open for hours to flip Republican 'no' votes. In the end, 19 Republicans opposed it of the 220 in the Republican caucus. Nine Democrats crossed the aisle to back it. A similar vote was held in the dead of night, at 3 a.m. on Thanksgiving morning. Advertisement Conservative media revolted. Rush Limbaugh, then commanding nearly 20 million weekly listeners, was furious. So were many voices on Fox News. In 2004, the new law became a flashpoint in GOP Senate primaries in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Candidates who opposed Medicare Part D defeated sitting officials who had backed it, one a senator, the other a governor, branding them sellouts to big government. Of course, that was a different Republican Party: one still led by Speaker Dennis Hastert, majority leader Tom DeLay, and united behind the Iraq War, launched just three months before the first Medicare vote. Today's GOP is arguably more unified on fiscal policy than on foreign affairs. On one side, you have voices like Senator Lindsey Graham, who cheered Israel's strikes on Iran with a simple 'game on.' On the other, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X: 'I don't want to see Israel bombed or Iran bombed or Gaza bombed. Everyone is finding out who are real America First/MAGA and who were fake and just said it because it was popular. Unfortunately, the list of fakes is becoming quite long and exposed themselves quickly. Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.' Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton has taken a different tack, saying: 'Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, has the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands, and is rushing to build not only nuclear weapons, but also missiles that can strike the United States. We back Israel to the hilt, all the way.' Advertisement Meanwhile, conservative media star Tucker Carlson offered this warning: 'The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers. Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who's calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran.' What's remarkable isn't simply that there's debate over Middle East policy, as Democrats are divided over Gaza, too. What stands out is where the Republican base is and how much power it holds to shape the party. The GOP base opposed Medicare Part D. It opposed other government expansions. And by 2012, it had grown so disillusioned with party leadership that it turned to Trump. That's why this debate over Iran may be about more than geopolitics. It could become the next major throughline shaping the GOP, one that will matter not just in today's headlines, but in the 2028 presidential election and beyond. James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
New York mayor's race emerges as proxy war for Democrats' future
Democrats are spending a great deal of time and money these days on trying to reconnect with the blue-collar men of the American heartland. And for good reason. The Electoral College map and distribution of House districts mean that if the Blue Team keeps getting shellacked with working class voters in the Midwest and Appalachia like they did in 2024, Democrats would be locked out of national elections. It's a kind of appealing doom for Democrats to consider, though. The solutions are mostly either about, Heaven help us, 'messaging' and electioneering tactics or abstract policy positions. Obsessing over which 'manosphere' pundits to prioritize or what pie-in-the-sky policies to support when your party is shut out of power gives the sensation of activity and purpose without actually having to do anything. Like the profoundly pointless Republican autopsy of 2013 that directed the party to prioritize softer language on immigration and make itself more accessible to women for the 2016 cycle, these current Democratic efforts are a good way to keep consultants busy (and paid) and provide good grist for pointy headed panels and not much else. This kind of chin stroking is good for trying to explain what happened before, but it's famously bad at predicting what will happen next. But while elite Democrats are pining for an imaginary victory won with imaginary candidates touting imaginary policies on imaginary podcasts, their party is not minding its business in the places it already controls and must retain: big cities. It would be nice for Democrats to get a hot hand with blue-collar Ohioans, but improvement in their existing strongholds is a nonnegotiable. The mayor of Los Angeles was in pretty bad shape with voters even before the clashes with federal immigration forces began last week. Whether Karen Bass be helped or hurt by her confrontation with the Trump administration is an open question, but any benefits seem unlikely to undo the damage done by her bungled response to the city's fires. Bass can at least be glad that she's not Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who is exploring the murkiest depths of public unpopularity. The teachers union activist claimed to be leading a 'bold progressive movement' when he was elected two years ago. He didn't mention that the direction of that movement would be boldly downward. America's second and third largest cities and the Democrats who govern them don't have many good options right now. There are success stories for new-wave Dems in San Francisco and elsewhere, but it's the biggest cities that get the most attention and do the most to set the narrative for the party nationally. None more so than New York. New York City Democrats will choose their nominee for mayor a week from today, and barring a bizarre turn of events, that nominee will become the 111th mayor of America's largest city. But this is New York, after all — a city that is rapidly losing population but is still somehow seeing crushing increases in housing costs. And this is also 2025, a time when the city's current mayor was allowed to skate on public corruption charges by a U.S. president who liked his vibe. So maybe we shouldn't be too dismissive about bizarre turns of events. The incumbent, Eric Adams, left the Democratic Party to run for reelection as an Independent after President Trump let him off the hook. But Trump, a native New Yorker, only got 30 percent of the vote in the city last year. That made Trump very useful for Adams staying out of jail but probably not too helpful for staying in Gracie Mansion. Even so, it's not inconceivable that Adams could win in November thanks to a kooky Democratic Party and quirky election rules. The city uses ranked choice voting, which means that voters in both the primary and general elections are allowed to pick their five most preferred candidates in ranked order. There are 11 candidates running in the Democratic field alone, so the chances of an outright majority winner in the first round appear low. In a plurality situation, the last-place candidate is eliminated and her or his supporters' voters are redistributed according to their preferences. That keeps up for as many rounds as are necessary to their number two, then number three and so on until there are only two candidates remaining and one gets an outright majority. The Democratic front-runner right now is former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is attempting a comeback after being forced from office in the summer of 2021 after 10 years in power over sexual harassment allegations. Cuomo's fall was cheered by progressives who had always seen him as too moderate to begin with. In choosing New York City as the location for his return to politics, Cuomo is going for the biggest prize but also a place with a large and intense community of progressive activists. Those activists have been smarting since Adams won in 2021 on a platform of reversing many of the policies of his progressive predecessor, Bill de Blasio, particularly on crime and policing. Adams hasn't delivered on promises to clean up the city, earning him the ire of both anti-police and law-and-order types. Cuomo's principal rival for the nomination is state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, who has captured the support of a broad progressive coalition, including de Blasio and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), who has said that stopping Cuomo is essential to progressives' national ambitions for the party. Cuomo has a lead in the polls, but ranked choice balloting could vault Mamdani to victory if enough supporters of also-rans give him second-place status. With his support for rent control, city-run grocery stores and curbs on police activities, Mamdani is far out enough to generate lots of left-wing excitement and an equal amount of anxiety among normie Democrats, including on the editorial board at The New York Times that is urging voters to pick anybody but the 33-year-old state legislator. The fear is not an unreasonable one. A Mamdani nomination would open the door ever so slightly to a MAGA-adjacent Adams winning reelection or, more likely, put New York on a similar trajectory as Chicago, where bold progressivism is currently taking a terrible beating. Cuomo, age 67 and one of the last powerful men to succumb to the #MeToo movement, is an unlikely standard-bearer for a Democratic Party desperate to move on from the miseries of the past decade, but New York politics isn't famous for its uncomplicated options. When former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who famously clashed with then-Gov. Cuomo during their overlapping time in office, endorsed his former foe it was the surest sign yet of the stakes in Tuesday's primary. It's the progressive populists versus the mainstream establishment for all the marbles in the heart of blue America. How that all plays out will probably have a great deal more to say about the near future of the Democratic Party than whatever word clouds emanate from consultants' focus groups or panels of pundits. Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of 'The Hill Sunday' on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. Meera Sehgal contributed to this report.
