Braun's power grab over IU silences alumni, harms IU brand

Gov. Mike Braun has attacked Indiana University by replacing three alumni-elected trustees after Republicans in the Indiana General Assembly inserted a special provision in the state budget allowing Braun to select all of its members.
Alumni have elected three out of nine trustees for more than a century. Changing this to further Braun and the state legislature's extremist, out-of-touch political agenda is not what is best for IU or the state.
Braun claimed the move was necessary, as the alumni election process 'enabled a clique, a few people, to actually determine three board members," ironically deeming that he alone is more qualified than thousands of alumni to know what is best for several major research universities.
His claim is disingenuous, at best. The move appears to be a power grab from an uninspiring politician trying to emulate President Trump's recent retribution against Harvard.
My IU degree is part of my personal brand and has carried me far in life, including to executive positions in my career and opportunities to serve my community.
As an alumnus who has been engaged in matters related to the university for decades, I see Braun's interference at IU as detrimental to that brand.
The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit against Braun, claiming the provision in the state budget that specifically targeted Indiana University's board of trustee elections was a form of "special legislation" in violation of the Indiana constitution.
I pray for the success of their lawsuit against Braun for his warrantless seizure of all of the trustee positions, and that IU would be protected from further political attacks.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

An inflation surge could swamp Trump's presidency. This one investment will keep your money safe.

America's financial outlook has darkened under President Donald Trump's leadership. All three major credit-rating agencies now rank U.S. federal debt one notch below triple-A, and Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase JPM, has warned of a crack in the U.S. bond market. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield BX:TMUBMUSD10Y at 4.4% on Wednesday and the 30-year rate BX:TMUBMUSD30Y at 4.9%, holders of nominal U.S. debt should be prepared for significant real losses. The principal risk is not U.S. sovereign default, but rather unexpected increases in medium- and long-term interest rates, owing to market expectations of higher inflation. Fiscal policy under Trump is unsustainable, as it was under former President Joe Biden — but even more so if the Trump administration's 'big, beautiful' budget passes in anything like its current form. 'I'm at my wit's end': My niece paid off her husband's credit card but fell behind on her taxes. How can I help her? Why the biggest-ever 'triple witching' options expiration could deliver a jolt to Friday's trading Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? I'm 75 and have a reverse mortgage. Should I pay it off with my $200K savings — and live off Social Security instead? The January 2025 Financial Report of the United States Government makes this clear. The U.S. ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP at the end of the 2024 fiscal year was around 98%, although $4.7 trillion of the $28.3 trillion in federal debt was held by the Federal Reserve — meaning it is erroneously categorized as held by the 'public,' when really the central bank's accounts should be consolidated with those of the federal government. Under current policy and based on the report's assumptions, federal debt held by the public would reach 535% of GDP by 2099. Stabilizing the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio requires that the annual primary federal deficit (excluding interest payments) fall by an average of 4.3% of GDP over the next 75 years. And yet, the federal deficit and primary deficit were 6.4% and 3.3% of GDP, respectively, in fiscal-year 2024 — far above what can be justified with the economy near full employment. Read: America's debt is at a breaking point — Trump's tax bill might just push it over the edge With the U.S. Congress so dysfunctional, no one has any faith that it will deliver the required deficit reduction. Democrats do not do permanent spending cuts, and Republicans do not do permanent tax increases. The federal government does own about 28% of U.S. land (roughly 640 million acres), as well as other real commercial assets that could yield significant additional nontax revenues if properly managed. But neither party — nor even the misnamed Department of Government Efficiency — appears to have considered this option, so the federal deficit as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next few years. With no foreseeable improvement in fiscal policy, there are two possible outcomes. First, the U.S. government could default. There has long been a small, but recurrent, risk of a technical, short-lived default if Congress fails to raise, suspend, extend, revise or abolish the federal debt ceiling on time. Fortunately, it has averted this scenario 78 times since 1960, and we expect it to continue doing so. As matters stand, the debt ceiling (including debt held by federal agencies) is set at $36.1 trillion, and debt subject to the limit is also $36.1 trillion. If needed, the Treasury has a highly liquid asset (the Treasury General Account held with the Fed) worth $332.9 billion that it can use to meet its obligations, and it may temporarily use 'extraordinary measures to continue to borrow additional amounts for a limited time.' The second, more likely possibility is that the Fed will monetize enough federal debt to prevent default. Since U.S. federal debt is serviced in dollars, 'printing money' is always an option. But, as the Fed well knows, a large-scale monetization of federal debt would result in significantly above-target inflation. We believe the Fed will do this without its operational independence being revoked by Trump. To get the Federal Open Market Committee to do something it does not want to do, the president would need to control the majority of its 12 voting members. These include the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and five (out of 12) regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents who vote at any given FOMC meeting. Neither the president nor Congress can appoint or fire Federal Reserve Bank presidents. The Board of Governors must approve them, and only the board can remove them. The president nominates board members, but the Senate must confirm them. Board members' current term limits imply that, assuming none are fired, Trump will have the opportunity to nominate only two new members. True, with the power to fire board members 'for cause' — meaning 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance' — Trump could try to replace a majority of the members with loyalists. But this seems unlikely. Whether the 'for cause' criterion has been met will be contested in the courts, and the Senate would have to confirm Trump's appointees. Read: Trump's pick to replace Fed Chair Powell could rock your mortgage and retirement. Buckle up. Similarly, Congress could revise the Federal Reserve Act to replace the Fed's monetary-policy objectives with a mandate to buy or sell sovereign debt according to the wishes of the Treasury. But this, too, is unlikely. And the same goes for a scenario in which the Treasury sets a rapidly depreciating exchange-rate target for the dollar DXY that can be achieved only through large-scale Fed purchases of U.S. public debt that generate high inflation. However, fiscal dominance — indeed, fiscal capture — is very likely, because the need to avoid a domestic and global financial crisis will force the FOMC's hand. It will do whatever is necessary to prevent a U.S. government default, because the Fed's financial-stability mandate (the Financial Stability Act of 2010 mentions the Fed 179 times) undoubtedly trumps its monetary-policy mandate of maintaining maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. The Fed cannot credibly threaten to refuse to monetize debt and deficits to compel fiscal retrenchment by the Treasury, let alone Congress. Thus, the Fed will have no choice but to engage in sovereign-debt purchases that it knows to be incompatible with its monetary-policy objectives. With nominal interest rates for medium- and long-term U.S. sovereign debt far below the levels consistent with realistic expectations of future inflation, serious capital losses on nominal debt instruments (public and private) are likely. The inflation surge could be no more than three years away. As the prospect of fiscal capture comes into view, investing in Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) and other indexed public and private debt instruments will become increasingly attractive. Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citibank and former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, is an independent economic adviser. Anne C. Sibert is professor emerita of economics at Birkbeck, University of London. This commentary — 'U.S. Debt Holders Should Brace for Impact' — is published with the permission of Project Syndicate. Read: 'You are going to panic,' Jamie Dimon tells regulators about what will happen when the bond market cracks More: What's at stake if world's most powerful market finally buckles after decades-long U.S. debt splurge 20 companies in the S&P 500 whose investors have gained the greatest rewards from stock buybacks Israel-Iran conflict poses three challenges for stocks that could slam market by up to 20%, warns RBC I'm 51, earn $129K and have $165K in my 401(k). Can I afford to retire when my husband, 59, draws Social Security at 62? 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? Why the stock market will be performing a high-wire act over the summer, according to UBS

Los Angeles Times

an hour ago

• Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor: This reader felt the call to speak out against the ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

To the editor: When I retired from my teaching career, I decided that I was going to get more actively involved in trying to make a difference through communication in written form. I had already educated students in history for 16 years and now I wanted to reach a bigger audience. Although writing was rewarding, I felt that I still needed to continue to communicate verbally to try to make a difference. To that effect, I have, on three occasions, made calls to lawmakers to express my opinion about legislation. I called countless federal legislators during President Trump's first term to try to keep the Affordable Care Act from being repealed. I still remember my joy in watching Sen. John McCain cast the deciding vote. Twice now in the last two months, I have called every senator over two bills, the first being the SAVE Act. Yesterday, I completed 100 calls to try to convince the senators that parts of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' are devastating ('Senate Republicans seek tougher Medicaid cuts and lower SALT deduction in Trump's big bill,' June 17). The huge cuts to social programs like Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act are overwhelming and the amounts seem to change daily. My biggest fear is the provision on Page 562 that few know about and mention (including your article). Although the details are confusing, the effects are clear: The power of the courts, which so far have been the people's only recourse, will essentially be weakened and the results could lead to full dictatorship. Lynn Lorenz, Newport Beach .. To the editor: The simple answer to avoiding the cruel and unnecessary cuts to programs and services funded by the federal government is to let the Trump tax cuts expire ('Republican fractures multiply over Trump's megabill,' June 19). Our priorities should be the poor, those in danger of losing healthcare, school lunch programs, national parks and climate change, not continuing tax breaks for the wealthy. Patricia Koch, Long Beach

Indianapolis Star

an hour ago

• Indianapolis Star

Hoosiers could be kicked off Medicaid under Trump's 'big beautiful bill.' What to know

Some Hoosiers could be kicked off Medicaid if President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passes in its current form, as the state grapples with the revenue cuts that would come with it. Language added to the federal legislation on June 16 caps the Medicaid provider tax — which is used to cover 90% of the state's portion of the costs for the Healthy Indiana Plan — at 3.5%. Indiana utilizes a 6% provider tax, meaning the change would decrease funding from the fee by nearly half. Opponents of the provider tax view it as a loophole used by states to qualify for matching dollars from the federal government, which pays for 90% of the costs of the program, without having to dedicate much of their own funds. If passed as is, Indiana would not be able to afford the current costs of the Healthy Indiana Plan, the state's insurance program for low-income people, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Mitch Roob said at a state budget committee meeting June 18. But neither Roob nor Gov. Mike Braun are asking Congress to keep the full 6%. Instead, Roob said at the meeting that he wants Congress to add language that would give states the flexibility to adapt. Those changes would allow the state to enroll fewer Hoosiers in HIP, according to Roob. 'Please give us the needed flexibility to roll back our eligibility if they change the fuel mix for our program,' he said at the meeting. Even without the added impact of the federal legislation, the state is making it more challenging to qualify for Medicaid. The latest version of HIP already includes more restrictions, such as work requirements for able-bodied recipients that passed the legislature this year. The new law includes a list of exceptions, though not all would be covered under the work requirement language proposed in the federal bill. In a statement June 18, Braun said the efforts to reduce federal spending were overdue. "However, flexibility in managing Indiana's HIP program will be essential for the state moving forward, especially if we are required to take on more of the financial obligation,' he said in the statement. 'This will require a hands-on approach to updating and maintaining Indiana's Medicaid system that only Hoosiers can provide.' Braun said he would work to 'stretch the dollar' for people with chronic diseases and those who 'really can't afford health care' when speaking to reporters at the Indiana Statehouse on June 19. 'That's what I'd like to have it there for, not what it's expanded into with very lax supervision, pushed by the feds and now with a bunch of begrudging state partners because it's been busting the budget,' he said. The provision has already faced some GOP opposition in the U.S. House of Representatives, which must approve this version of the bill before it can move on. With a slim Republican majority, it's possible the part of the bill that imposes the 3.5% tax cap could be removed. The version that already passed the House only capped future increases in provider fees.