Braun chides LG for Three-Fifths Compromise comments, defends tax plan at 100 days celebration
Gov. Mike Braun delivers remarks while celebrating his first 100 days in office on Wednesday, April 30, 2025. (Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Indiana cabinet members, lawmakers, lobbyists and more gathered Wednesday to celebrate Gov. Mike Braun's first 100 days in office — but the man of the hour had tough words for his second-in-command, critics of his marquee legislative accomplishments and the health care industry.
Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith enraged civil rights activists and historians alike last Thursday when he dubbed the U.S. Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise 'a great move' toward ending slavery.
Braun didn't publicly weigh in for a nearly a week.
'I definitely wouldn't have used that characterization, and I don't like it,' he told reporters Wednesday.
'I'm a believer that you better start thinking about what you're saying before it comes out,' he continued. '… And I think that you don't want to make headlines the wrong way, because it takes away from the substance of what you're trying to do.'
Braun also defended the local property and income tax plan that lawmakers pushed past the finish line this month amid outcry from hard-hit units of local government and dissatisfied homeowners.
'By far the biggest thing I heard about: we went from one version to a different version, and then the meat grinder of legislation took over,' he told attendees. 'And look at the product that we turned out. … You're pissing off people on each end of the spectrum and most in between say that it was a solid package.'
In comments to reporters, Braun envisioned further cuts to homestead property tax bills, done gradually 'to where other sources of income can be used.' But he warned school districts and local governments that he wouldn't allow their revenues to grow faster than the economy.
Former President Joe Biden got a knock as Braun said a grim revenue forecast forced lawmakers to cut $2 billion in spending out of the state's next two-year, now-$44 billion budget in the space of a week.
'When it comes to what we really cut, nothing got hammered, and the most important stuff stayed intact,' he declared.
Most state agencies, along with public colleges and universities, were dealt 5% funding cuts. Lawmakers also squeezed eligibility requirements for the state's pre-kindergarten program and subsidized child care.
But a two-year-old program to supplement local public health departments took a 60% cut, with funding falling from $100 million each year to $40 million. Legislative leaders argued that nearly half the funds disbursed last year hadn't yet been spent.
'Don't ever mistake that you got to have more money to do things better with. That's called anti-productivity,' Braun replied, when asked about the public health funding cut. 'When you come up with better ideas, you may need more money to invest, and there's nothing wrong with that, but in most cases, when it comes to government, you've got plenty of money. You've just got to learn how to spend it better.'
But he didn't rule out funding boosts in the future.
'Don't mistake the short-run — where you get whipsawed — with what you want to do in the mid-term and the long-term,' Braun said. 'So that means we may be pouring more resources into it, if we can get a good (return on investment).'
He had big hopes for the interim and legislative sessions to come, repeatedly noting how taking office days after the session's start hampered his efforts to shape proposals. His first 100 days overlapped entirely with the breakneck budget-writing session, ending just over a day before both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly adjourned sine die.
Braun reiterated his desire to tackle high health care costs as his top priority now that session is over. In both his speech and comments to reporters, he asked players in the health care industry for solutions while threatening punishment for stasis.
'That and more will be brought to bear if, in fact, they're not lowering their prices and giving us better outcomes,' Braun said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
9 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Means to Provoke, Not Pacify
President Donald Trump is about to launch yet another assault on democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions of civil-military relations, this time in Los Angeles. Under a dubious legal rationale, he is activating 2,000 members of the National Guard to confront protests against actions by ICE, the immigration police who have used thuggish tactics against citizens and foreigners alike in the United States. By militarizing the situation in L.A., Trump is goading Americans more generally to take him on in the streets of their own cities, thus enabling his attacks on their constitutional freedoms. As I've listened to him and his advisers over the past several days, they seem almost eager for public violence that would justify the use of armed force against Americans. The president and the men and women around him are acting with great ambition in this moment, and they are likely hoping to achieve three goals in one dramatic action. First, they will turn America's attention away from Trump's many failures and inane feuds, and reestablish his campaign persona as a strongman who will brush aside the law if that's what it takes to keep order in the streets. Perhaps nothing would please Trump more than to replace weird stories about Elon Musk with video of masked protesters burning cars as lines of helmeted police and soldiers march over them and impose draconian silence in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. Second, as my colleague David Frum warned this morning, Trump is establishing that he is willing to use the military any way he pleases, perhaps as a proof of concept for suppressing free elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump sees the U.S. military as his personal honor guard and his private muscle. Those are his toy soldiers, and he's going to get a show from his honor guard in a birthday parade next weekend. In the meantime, he's going to flex that muscle, and prove that the officers and service members who will do whatever he orders are the real military. The rest are suckers and losers. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, Trump was furious at what he saw as the fecklessness of military leaders determined to thwart his attempts to use deadly force against protesters. He's learned his lesson: This time, he has installed a hapless sycophant at the Pentagon who is itching to execute the boss's orders. Third, he may be hoping to radicalize the citizen-soldiers drawn from the community who serve in the National Guard. (Seizing the California Guard is also a convenient way to humiliate California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, with Trump's often-used narrative that liberals can't control their own cities.) The president has the right to 'federalize' Guard forces, which is how they were deployed overseas in America's various conflicts. Trump has never respected the traditions of American civil-military relations, which regard the domestic deployment of the military as an extreme measure to be avoided whenever possible. Using the Guard could be a devious tactic: He may be hoping to set neighbor against neighbor, so that the people called to duty return to their home and workplace with stories of violence and injuries. In the longer run, Trump may be trying to create a national emergency that will enable him to exercise authoritarian control. (Such an emergency was a rationalization, for example, for the tariffs that he has mostly had to abandon.) He has for years been trying to desensitize the citizens of the United States to un-American ideas and unconstitutional actions. The American system of government was never meant to cope with a rogue president. Yet Trump is not unstoppable. Thwarting his authoritarianism will require restraint on the part of the public, some steely nerves on the part of state and local authorities, and vigilant action from national elected representatives, who should be stepping in to raise the alarm and to demand explanations about the president's misuse of the military. As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities. ICE is on a rampage, but physically assaulting or obstructing its agents—and thus causing a confrontation with the cops who have to protect them, whether those police officers like it or not—will provide precisely the pretext that some of the people in Trump's White House are trying to create. The president and his coterie want people walking around taking selfies in gas clouds, waving Mexican flags, holding up traffic, and burning cars. Judging by reactions on social media and interviews on television, a lot of people seem to think such performances are heroic—which means they're poised to give Trump's enforcers what they're hoping for. Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting the worst-case scenario in Los Angeles Instead, the most dramatic public action the citizens of Southern California could take right now would be to ensure that Trump's forces arrive on calm streets. Imagine the reactions of the Guard members as they look around and wonder what, exactly, the commander in chief was thinking. Why are they carrying their rifles in the streets of downtown America? What does anyone expect them to do? Put another way: What if the president throws a crackdown and nobody comes? This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate. He is resorting to the grand theater of militarism because he is losing on multiple fronts in the courts—and he knows it. The law, for most people, is dreary to hear about, but one of the most important stories of Trump's second term is that lawyers and judges are so far holding a vital line against the administration, sometimes at great personal risk. Trump is also losing public support, which is another reason he's zeroing in on California. He is resolutely ignorant in many ways, but he has an excellent instinct for picking the right fights. The fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans believe that almost everything about immigration in the United States has long been deeply dysfunctional. (I'm one of them.) If he sends the military into L.A. and Guard members end up clashing in high-definition video with wannabe resistance gladiators in balaclavas, many people who have not been paying attention to his other ghastly antics will support him. (For the record, I am not one of them.) So far, even the Los Angeles Police Department—not exactly a bastion of squishy suburban book-club liberals—has emphasized that the protests have been mostly peaceful. Trump is apparently trying to change that. Sending in the National Guard is meant to provoke, not pacify, and his power will only grow if he succeeds in tempting Americans to intemperate reactions that give him the authoritarian opening he's seeking.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sanders on LA National Guard deployment: Trump ‘thinks he has a right to do anything'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday went after President Trump over the deployment of 2,000 National Guardsmen to the Los Angeles area, saying the president 'thinks he has a right to do anything.' 'He does not believe in the Constitution; he does not believe in the rule of law,' Sanders told CNN's Dana Bash of Trump on 'State of the Union.' 'My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,' he added. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guardsmen to the Los Angeles area on Saturday amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said previously the action was due to 'violent mobs' recently attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' 'These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester,' Leavitt said. The president blamed California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Karen Bass (D) for the unrest that started due to ICE raids. Newsom has called the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.) also said Sunday that the deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area is 'going to escalate the situation.' The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
