Tribune-Star Editorial: Salary bumps bad taste in tight budget year
Child care wait lists.
Medicaid caps.
Local health department funding.
Indiana's Gov. Mike Braun has asked that the state's next budget be kept tight, likely affecting many programs Hoosiers depend on.
However, when it comes to paying Gov. Braun's cabinet secretaries, the sky is apparently the limit.
An analysis by the Indiana Capital Chronicle of salaries for state employees shows Braun's eight cabinet heads will each take home $275,000, a full $50,000 more than the governor himself.
The Capital Chronicle reports those salaries push total pay for Braun's top agency leaders to over $1 million more than his predecessor, former Gov. Eric Holcomb. And Braun's number will rise since he hasn't appointed one key agency head and another doesn't yet appear on the state's transparency portal, the news agency reported.
The discrepancies leave average, ordinary taxpayers scratching their heads, especially when Braun has directed state agencies to trim their budgets by 5% and identify ways to save taxpayer dollars.
We can think of programs that could use the extra $1 million.
In a December news release the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's Office of Early Childhood and Out-of-School Learning announced it is re-implementing a waitlist for new Child Care Development Fund and On My Way Pre-K voucher applicants due to significant growth in both programs. The demand for child care in this state has already proven to be costly. Now, low-income parents seeking child care services will be put on a waiting list for vouchers. This is in addition to existing waitlists for other Medicaid waiver services. Why make struggling Hoosiers wait?
Another proposal means some children with autism may not get the care they need. In order to contain growing Medicaid costs, lawmakers are looking at limiting ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) treatment to 30 hours a week and capping the therapy at three years. What will those children do for the remaining 10 hours a week and past the three-year cap? What will their parents do? How will they keep their jobs if they have to now stay home to care for their child who desperately needs this therapy to succeed in the first place? Growing strong, successful Hoosiers in an inclusive Indiana should be a priority.
What about local health departments who received a much-needed influx of funds from Health First Indiana? The program was intended to improve Hoosiers' health outcomes, which are some of the poorest in the country. According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Braun's budget tapers that investment, lowering the funding from $150 million in the second year to $100 million a year. The advantage of having these funds to treat addiction, mental health issues and more is well documented. Will newly established initiatives just cease to exist now?
And that's only a few ways keeping a lean budget could limit services Hoosiers count on every day. The list of programs that could benefit from the extra salary funding goes on and on.
Braun needs to rethink his cabinet head salaries or find a way to justify them that makes sense to taxpayers. Blanket statements that it's well worth it because each will find 'savings that exceed the cost of their salaries' are vague and unhelpful.
The money could be more reasonably spent on the programs above that affect everyday Hoosiers, many who are struggling. Already high-paid staff members don't need a bump in salary to make a difference in this state.
It seems the governor has his priorities out of order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!
The Hill
12 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats see political trap in Trump's Biden probe
Democrats are warning members of their party not to fall into a political trap after President Trump ordered an investigation into former President Biden's mental state and executive actions at the end of his term. Trump directed his counsel, in consultation with the attorney general, to probe 'whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state' amid renewed scrutiny of his predecessor's age and health in the lead-up to last year's election. The probe threatens to keep an issue in the news that Democrats would like to move on from and could force them into the uncomfortable position of having to defend Biden despite his unpopularity. 'We need to avoid taking the bait for a totally unfounded political stunt, which is what this investigation is,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). 'It's a distraction from the problems that everyday Americans face in our economy: tariffs, rising prices and the 'Great Big, Beautiful Bill.'' Biden also cast the play as a distraction from controversy swirling around the current White House, pushing back sharply against Trump's suggestion that he was not the one making the decisions from the Oval Office. Trump's call for an investigation fixates on Biden's use of an autopen to sign executive actions, claiming that, if advisers 'secretly used' the mechanism 'to conceal his incapacity,' it would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of presidential power. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,' Biden said in a statement. 'This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.' On Capitol Hill, where Trump's House-passed spending bill is hitting snags in the Senate as Elon Musk feuds with Trump and calls to kill the legislation, other Democrats are echoing that framing. 'He's clearly trying to deflect attention from the disastrous effect he's had on the US economy,' said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). 'He only brings up Joe Biden when he's really worried about something, like 'Vladimir Putin is playing me and the world sees it. My tariffs thing is not working out.'' 'So I would say, give it as little attention as possible,' Kaine said, suggesting Democrats should turn the inquiry around on Trump and say, ''You're the president now. What about your evidence of mental decline?'' Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Ruben Gallego (D-N.M.) concurred that the move is a distraction from the bill and that Democrats should respond by drawing Americans' focus to the budget concerns instead. Engaging could also risk legitimizing some of Trump's claims about the end of Biden's term, suggested Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. He called the push for an investigation 'a distraction pitch that Donald Trump is trying to throw down at the batter's box, hoping somebody will swing at it.' 'Anytime we fall into the trap, then we trap our own selves,' Seawright said of Democrats. 'We should focus on this moment and not try to get caught up into conversations that don't gain us anything electorally or politically.' Questions about Biden's age and health dogged him along the 2024 campaign trail, contributing to his eventual exit from the race. Trump, who railed against his two-time rival as 'Sleepy Joe' as they jostled for the White House, has continued to raise the issue, while Democrats seek to turn the page and look toward the midterms and 2028. Trump has repeatedly blasted Biden over his autopen use, questioning whether orders signed by his predecessor — including 11th-hour preemptive pardons for his family members and others to protect against 'politically motivated prosecutions' — are void as a result. The White House confirmed this week that the Department of Justice is reviewing Biden's pardons. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has also started its own inquiry into what Republicans have cast as a 'mental decline cover up.' This week, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) demanded interviews from some of Biden's former top aides as well as his doctor, Kevin O'Connor. At the same time, new books, including 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again' from CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson, have renewed debate about his mental acuity. The scrutiny also comes after Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer last month. The diagnosis itself prompted questions about whether the timing was intended as a distraction and did little to quell talk about whether the 82-year-old should have dropped out of the race earlier. Republicans, for their part, are largely heralding the inquiries as a pursuit in transparency. 'The American people deserve to know who was making decisions from the White House between 2021-2025. I hope this investigation uncovers the truth,' Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said on X of Trump's probe. A number of Democrats seen as 2028 hopefuls, asked in recent weeks about the end of Biden's presidency, have acknowledged his weaknesses. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told an Iowa town hall last month that his then-boss's decision to run for reelection 'maybe' hurt Democrats, and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Politico there's 'no doubt' Biden suffered cognitive decline. Across the board, though, Democrats have been pointing toward the future and hoping to move on from questions about their former party leader as they stare down the high-stakes midterms next year and aim for the White House in 2028. Biden's favorability was at 39 percent in the latest YouGov/The Economist polling, compared to Trump's 44 percent and former Vice President Harris's 42 percent. 'If Democrats shift their focus to this, then they risk further alienating and frustrating their base that is ready to put Biden behind them,' said Democratic strategist Fred Hicks. He pointed out Trump's public fallout this week with Musk, who's suggested that Trump's bill could be 'bankrupting America,' and suggested it could be opening for Democrats in their pushback against the administration. But although Democrats are pushing for the party to ignore not just the probe but the Biden discourse more broadly, many have acknowledged that the issue is likely to dog them through 2028 and could even be a political liability for some potential presidential contenders. Strategist Hank Sheinkopfinterpreted Trump's new probe not as a trap or bait, but as a direct attack, and countered some of his fellow Democrats by arguing that the party ought to respond. ''Take [Trump] on or lose in 2026' is really the reality which they don't want to deal with. They somehow believe that if they don't take them on, they'll win anyway,' Sheinkopf said of party leaders. 'What they want is [to say], 'Biden, we're not talking about that, that's the past.' But that's the present. So it's a delusional argument,' he said. 'Trump is making this the present. He's defining the Demcoratic Party by Biden, and the things he's going to say about Biden, whether they are true or not. So you can't let that stand.'
