October 16, 2025 • 37 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
New opinion piece out in the Indie Star about Joe
Hogg set and letting that wacky goofy Thomas Carl Cook
run Indianapolis and it is excellent ninety three WIBC. It's
Kennel a Casey's Show and Rob Casey's out today Jim
Merritt in for Casey, joined in studio by James Briggs.
You're like the opinion head honcho over at Indie Stars
(00:20):
that you're.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Actually opinions are I think there is a good word.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
And then look, this new piece is excellent. It's entitled
you can read it out over at Indiesstar dot com.
Hoggs that let Thomas Cook run Indianapolis. His legacy is imploding.
And the latest revelations obviously are that Thomas Cook was
involved in a relationship with this woman who was helping
delegate incentive dollars to various businesses, and many of these
(00:45):
businesses Thomas Cook ended up representing after he left the
Mayor's office. This is just so egregious that this was
going on.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I think one of the things we really learn here,
and this is sort of a point of my column
that I wrote most recently, was that Thomas Cook's in
fluence didn't just stop when he left the city in
twenty twenty, and again for hr reasons. He left because
it was found that he was in an inappropriate relationship,
so he was forced to resign from the city in
twenty twenty. But I think this new reporting shows that
his influence didn't stop there. It continued even as he
(01:14):
existed it sort of peripheral to city government, and I
think that's like a new level to the problematic relationship
that he had with the city that we're seeing right now.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
It was interesting because we played earlier Russ McQuaid from
Fox fifty nine caught up with hog set somewhere, and
his responses to Russ McQuay, like, just there's appears to
be a total lack of understanding of why this is
a big deal, of why people are set about this,
and what even was taking place and why was so inappropriate.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah, and so one of the things I tried to
do in this column that we're talking about is take
a step back and show like what I think the
big picture problem is here, and it is that Mayor
Joe hogg Sett took office and sort of abdicated his
role as leader of the city and sort of let
Thomas Cook take over. And so we've been talking about
Thomas Cook for over a year now, and he's still
sort of an abstract figure, Like I don't know that
(02:05):
many people in your audience like know anything about him
or why we're talking about him. Do you mind if
I take you down a little bit of a rabbit
hole right now? Please go all the rabbit holes? So,
and I want to be clear at top, I don't
mean this to say like you got to hand it
to Thomas Cook. I don't want anyone to be my takeaway.
But Thomas Cook was really good at his job, and
I want to sort of set the scene for why
he was so effective and why he was given this
(02:27):
so much free reign over the mayor's office. Do you
guys remember and I'm sure you do at WIBC when
Jefferson Shreeve was running for mayor in twenty twenty three
and he came out in favor of gun control.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Oh yes, they called me the day before and said
please be nice to us.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Yes, we remember that very well. So that's not gonna fly.
So that was Thomas Cook. That happened because of Thomas Cook.
So the mayor's campaign. I had a long term strategy
and it was multi pronged. First, the mayor introduced his
own gun control measures, which were very popular among the
electorate in Indianapolis, and that happened in May of twenty
twenty three. At the same time, they were pounding Jefferson
(03:02):
Shreve on his NRA affiliation, like just bludgeoning him and
he got And by the way, they this was told
to me ahead of time that our point here, we're
going to roll out some.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Some gun control proposals.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
We're going to hit Shreve on his NRA affiliation, and
we're going to hurt him so badly that he is
going to have to come out in favor of gun control.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
And I might tell you.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
That they say we're going to do this.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
In my reaction to that at the time from hearing
that was like, okay, you know whatever, Like the Republican
candidate for mayor is going to come out in favor
of gun control, sure whatever. And I mean, I'll be damned.
It happened literally exactly as they planned it.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
It was.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
I mean, when Jefferson Shreve was standing up there talking about,
you know, saying things like assault style rifles, the terminology
that drives Republicans insane.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
All I could think was that was Thomas Cook. He
did that.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
James Briggs from Dye Stars our guest. He's got a
fabulous new piece out about Joe hog set and and
he's basically giving free rein to Thomas Carl Cook.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Jim, Well, there's a certain arrogance about this administration from
day one. And you we talked this morning about the
AEES situation with the ray case and and and regardless
of the rappayer, they come out and and kind of
throw up the white flag with AES and now and
also this is very good reporting by yourself along with
(04:20):
mir Indianapolis Star. It almost it views almost the arrogance
of we're going to get through this time frame, this
six minute media and we're going to move on to
the next topic. And his treatment Russ McQuay, who is
a very good member, very quality, credible member of the
news media, and these these comments that he's giving almost
(04:44):
like flicking with him away like a fly. You must
feel that like on a daily basis with the Mayor's office.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Yeah, I mean, obviously the mayor wants to move on
from this, and you know, I guess I'll go back
to the point I was just hammering on. The reason
he can't move on from this is because this just
keeps coming up. There is a new revelation every few
weeks or every few months, and he's, you know, sort
of what I was talking about earlier, is like, because
of the competency that Thomas Cook revealed in a number
of areas running campaigns, running city government, the mayor sort
(05:11):
of entrusted him with everything and just let him run
away with everything. And because that was the case, now
the mayor is sort of stuck being responsible for all
of these things that Thomas Cook did. So far, we
don't know that the mayor is personally culpable for any
ethical lapses, for any personal, you know, inappropriate behavior. The
mayor himself none of this ties directly back to him.
But because he just sort of seeded leadership to Thomas
(05:33):
Cook and let him run away in all of these
different areas of city government and campaigns, now this story
won't go away.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So the mayor, I'm sure, yeah, he wants it to
go away.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
He wants he doesn't want to talk to Rus mcway,
He doesn't want to talk to anyone about to him.
He would like this to just be old news. He's
got you know, this is gonna be a long two years, right,
He's got a lot of time left in his third term.
But these stories keep coming out, and it's because of
all the things that Thomas Cook was unable to do
under the mayor's you know, a leadership.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
James Ricks from Indie Star is our guest. So you
write a lot about people, and I think you write
very well about people, and I think you sort of
take angles on people that most people don't think about.
That's why they read your columns. The Thomas Cook thing
is fascinating to me because you're right, from a purely
political perspective, the guy was really good at his job,
yet he exhibited zero, apparently self control in terms of
(06:25):
behaving in decent office society. And that's such a weird
like dichotomy that, on one hand, this guy is so
good at this thing, but yet that can't do the
most basic of stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Unfortunately too, I think the political environment is a place
where that's not all uncommon. I mean, we've had a
lot of these types of stories unfortunately in you know,
Indiana and Indianapolis politics in the last several years.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Especially at the state level.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
I mean, there have been, you know a lot of
stories like this, So I would say what you're describing is,
you know, it really does stick out, but it's also
extremely common, you know in this like and and you
know it's a lot of men sort of driving these things,
and you know, I'm sure you know, you know, Senator Merritt,
you can sort of talk about the State House a
little bit in that regard because there are a lot
of stories that have been over there over the years.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
But this happens a lot in politics.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Unfortunately, Jimmy after ever yelled anybody for being inappropriate and
say Briggs is gonna find out about this, You're gonna
get big trouble.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
There are times my office was called the woodshed, and
so we've had some members in my office when I
was caucus chairman, we had to have a conversation about
treatment of staff or treatment of fellow senators or people
in the state House. So, yeah, it happens in every organization,
no question about it.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
And I suspect that's part of the like why the
mayor still like thinking you can just move past this too,
because this level of behavior has been accepted for so
long in so many different environments and it's not acceptable
right now. And I think the reporting just continues to
show that what Thomas Cook was allowed to do under
the mayor's watch was completely inappropriate. It should and the
mayor should have known about it. If he didn't know
(07:53):
about it, which he has said, then he should have
known about it and it should have been stopped.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
And that's why this keeps going on.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
My story about Thomas Cook is when I was running
for mayor and election morning came and uh, I got
a text from Thomas Carl Cook and he said, when
you when you throw up the white flag at six,
this is the number you called.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Is that real?
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Oh? Absolutely, that's I was never so stunned at the
at the I was so surprised.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
And you know, literally said that when you throw up
the white flag at six, this is the number you call.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Yes to get a hold of mayor. When you throw
up a white flag, this is the number you should
call it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And what did you do? You threw up the white flag?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Right, I about threw up.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Just gonna run again?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
No, I don't think so. I at first, nothing.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Else to do. Nobody's gonna employ him.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
It's it's it's getting bad.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
I think there was a period where I thought, maybe
maybe he does because of what you're saying. I mean,
I think we know he said before he wasn't gonna
run for a third term than he did, and I
think much of that can be attributed to the fact
that he just doesn't have anything better to do. Somebody
really should have found him a job, you know, a
couple of years ago. We could have avoided some of this,
at least at least a fallout.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Certainly. See, I'm sixty six. He was a senior when
I was a freshman, So he's he's heading towards seventy.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, I forget his age off the top of my head, but.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Yeah, I mean that was I interviewed him, you know,
years ago, and that was sort of his point about
why he wasn't going to run for a third term.
From what he told me, he sort of did the math,
like here's the age. I'lb So, no, I'm not interested
in that. Well, then he did it. There was a
time where I thought maybe he would run for a
fourth term, but I don't see that at all.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Right now, Hey, real quick, before he lets you go
just off topic, but you broke the story that Bobai
is running for Secretary of State, and I thought the
piece was interesting. Do you we're gonna have him on tomorrow?
Do you think he can do it? Can he break
the Republican cabal in the state.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
I think it's certainly possible.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
I mean, we're seeing right now he's fundraising at you know,
a really great pace, especially for a Democrat. I think,
you know, the odds are always against him. I said this
in a different column. If I had to put money
on it, my money would be no, he'll lose. But
at the same time, I think Republican keep doing unpopular things.
I mean this, you know, one of the points of
your show lately has been Republicans keep doing unpopular things.
And I think there's a there is a point, you know,
(10:08):
whether it is months away or years away, there is
a point when the electorate will get tired of that
and they will sort of rebel against the party that
just keeps keeps sticking it down people's throats and saying
deal with it. People don't want to deal with it forever.
So someday a Democrat is going to win in Indiana,
and Bobai is, you know, certainly the best near term
opportunity that Democrats have.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
It's a great piece. Everybody go read it. Thomas or
a hog set. Let Thomas Cook run. Indianapolis's legacy is inploding.
James Briggs, thank you, thanks for having me. It's Kennel
A Casey Show, ninety three WIBC. All right, so we've
been teasing this all show. You're here, merit, so I
want to put your expertise to work. It's Kennel A
Casey Show and Rob Jim Merriton for Casey. Today. You
(10:48):
are on this i U r C Nominating Committee. Correct,
That is the Indiana Utility Regulatory Committee. And there are
going to be three vacancies on this committee. Yes, that
will be the people who will decide whether rate utility
rates go up going forward.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
And we've had some fun with it. We joked about
Casey was gonna apply for the thing and blah blah blah.
But I did want to take, you know, in all seriousness,
some opportunity while you're here, and we have you know,
more than just your regular segment with us on Wednesdays
to sort of work through how this whole process works.
Because this is a massive deal for every Hoosier, whether
you live in Indianapolis, or you live in Petersburg or Attica,
(11:28):
or you know, Greenwood or wherever, because wherever you live,
you have a utility that is providing power to you
and gas and et cetera. And these people you nominate
and if the governor accepts them, will be the people
who decide whether your rates go up. So I thought
we just kind of worked through a high level how
this process works and help people understand, you know, exactly
(11:51):
what's going on.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And not put people to sleep while we're talking about that.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
That's what we knew, Jim, how we're gonna do this
and make it enter. You got me, Jim, and over entertaining.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
The meat and potatoes of this are is that the IRC,
the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, is made up of five commissioners.
One is Chairman Houston, who is retiring in December two.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
That's the guy what runs the meeting.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Yes, yes, he's the chairman. He ministered.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
It's sort of like the Supreme Court where when John
Roberts got nominated the Supreme Court under George Bush, he's
not only nominated the Supreme Court, but to be the
Chief Justice.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
That's exactly, okay. And the governor is in that position
with the chairman.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
So whoever you nominate for chairman is who the chairman
is going to be? Right, okay?
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Right?
Speaker 4 (12:30):
And Wes Bennett, who was retiring is a commissioner, a
commissioner freeman who is and these are Republicans and Democrats,
so you and it's very confusing, but there has to
be there have to be both parties represented on the commission.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Okay. So of these three seats, and this is important
because the way the thing is structured, you have to
have so many Democrats, so many Republicans, right, so I
think it's like three and two three Republicans to Democrats.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Is that? Yes? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Yes, So one of these people you nominate has to
be a Democrat and one of them who you nominate
has to be a Republican. And then the chairman is
its own separate things. So I want to just focus
on the two like rank and file people going.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
To rank and file are going to be decided this month.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yeah, so like let's just say, now, where would I fit,
because I'm apparently not a Republican and good standing you
may have heard about this, would I fit as a
Republican or.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Well, it all depends if you vote in the primary.
I have I voted in all the primary, and did
you vote republican? I did vote? Okay, Well a Republican
then okay, very and and that's and and I think
it needs to be not all Republican, not all Democrats
most states. Not in most states. There are a large
majority of states that actually vote. Uh, these are elected
(13:47):
positions that are in other states. So you could people
run on low low energy rates in other states. Oh
that's wild. Yeah, I don't. I don't like that. I
think they your see and it's it's since nineteen ninety
one when I understand it. It really has evolved into
a almost like a judicial position where you have to
(14:08):
be a judge. It takes a lot of reading, it
takes a lot of I call it the cave because
you're really not public. I would not be a good
member because I like being on shows like this, being
out in public. But people retiring are are good people.
This Nominating Commission, what we do is we come forward
(14:31):
and we have hearings and this is all transparent. This
is all online. You can watch every interview and we
will interview. Watch the interviews. Yes you can. Yes, it's
all transparent.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
And well, now I really would have applied, but I
known I could have got an interview.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Well, there will be an executive session on Monday, this
coming Monday. That is not this executive session that is
behind closed doors. But all the interviews are online. You
can watch them so real quick.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
So you got these applications, all these the window has closed.
All these people sent you applications. And then what you
guys kind of have a closed door debate on who
do we want to interview? And yes, and then they
that goes out publicly.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
And I stepped away from the Senate in twenty twenty,
and I was I was nominated Sarah Bray, the President
of the Senate. I'm his his selection to be on
this nominating committee. Each member of the House caucus and
Senate caucuses have a nominee along with the governor. And
so this is this is from every corner people on
(15:35):
this nominating commission. And so we'll we will, we will
decide who we're gonna who we're gonna interview, and how.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Many how many people you normally interview is like five.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Well, you know, in years past we've had to pull
people off the street virtually.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
But they didn't know this job paid one hundred and
fifty grand.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
No, no, and it doesn't. And it's so quiet, and
it should be quiet because util your rates are very
important and you need to be judicious in the way
you you select these people and the way these people serve.
And so you're under a rock when you're a commissioner.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Okay, so how are you gonna square this? Because the
governor who will make the final call. Right, just because
you nominate somebody, the governor can say, now don't like
that person, Yeah, yeah, go back and do it again.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
Yes, Well, we'll nominate several people for each spot, and
the what you call the rank and file those two
and then we'll we'll send those nominations to the governor.
And and uh, like, if you.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Put Rob Kendall's name down as the Republican, you would
be told you're going to need to do this again, right,
so he doesn't have to take who you suggest.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, yeah, that's exactly right. Our our friend Aaron Sheridan
has said she's going to apply, and uh, and I
don't know if she actually did or not, but I'll
talk to anybody you know this. I talk to you,
and I'll talk I'll talk to you, Jesse and uh,
but but but I encourage the deadline's gone by. But
(17:01):
when I encourage anybody to apply, including cases.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Can I have an extended filing windows like my taxes?
Speaker 4 (17:08):
If I were chairman, then yes, but I'm not chairman
nominating commission.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
You should probably walk in there go my friend say
it exactly like this. My friend Rob Kendall would like
to apply. Can we give him a courtesy?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Abdul too?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it'll.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Go over great.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Okay, So, so how are you going to square? Because
Braun seems to have given very specific, basically instructions that
he wants somebody who is not going to raise utility rates.
I mean, at least that's sort of what it seemed
like from the the stuff he's been saying.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
I think a person he named a new consumer counselor, right,
and one of the instructions was that he doesn't like
rate increases.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Look, and I think part of the struggle is that
every so often you may need to raise rates. However,
the rate increases have gotten so out of control and
so frequent that now the people are out with the
pitchforks and long knives, right, So how do you square
that with what you having, you know, some level of
(18:05):
expertise background in this what you think might need to
happen versus sort of the one the public sentiment, but
to the very what appeared to be clear instructions from
the governor. How do you guys square that well?
Speaker 4 (18:17):
As you know, I've met with some of the people
that are candidates, and I've and I've had conversations over
the phone. I'm an open book about this. What I
what I tell people is this entity. If you like media,
this is not a job for you. You've got to
be independent. You've got to be well read. You've got
to have interest in the minutia, and you've you've got
(18:39):
to understand detail. You've got to understand rates, you've got
to understand people. You've got to have judicial, judicious manner
about you. You have got to be completely immersed in
this very very important job. And regardless of what Joe
hoggs that's doing the city County building with AEES, you've
got to keep your eye on the ball on exactly
(19:00):
what's good for the rappair, what's good for the utility,
and and and understand that you've got industrial, you've got commercial,
and you've got residential, and they all have to not
be happy but respect and understand your decisions.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
What's the Is it a pretty quick time frame like
from when you guys decide to interview people? Will it
be named?
Speaker 4 (19:24):
I think? I think the governor Energy is something that
I tell Secretary Suzi Jevrowski this all the time. Energy
is this administration? Now?
Speaker 1 (19:34):
This is wait, wait real quick, because you brought her up,
does she regret going to that dinner and basically their
lunch and basically saying that these companies should sue municipality and.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
We don't talk about that. What we talk about is
really the future of energy, and she knows how much
I'm appreciative the fact that nuclear has to be a
part of that energy. But what what what we what
we talk about is is the idea that we need.
We need eight individuals who are willing to put their
nose to the grindstone and and and be independent. But
(20:05):
understanding that that hopefully the Trump administration takes kind of
the federal push on rates down with all the environmental
uh uh minutia that utilities have to go through and
we're getting into the into the in the swamp here
with issues. But bottom line is that that these individuals
(20:25):
who we nominate that we send the governor understand that
rates are important, but as well as the energy world
is changing and and the the and the bronze people
are trying to bring the real world to Indiana with
uh different kinds of energy that is going to power
this future of the Indiana.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
See, that wasn't boring at all. We tried, I mean
at least not to me.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Well, I hope, I hope our listeners. Maybe you'll have
me back, maybe not. But anyway, it is interesting because
you get your utility bill every month.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Yeah, and this going forward, this is important to you
now that I know you're on that commission. If anybody
raises my rate, I'm blaming you. I'm sending it to
your house. We'll have to have hammer on again this week.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Can puss each other.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Out a all right, let's take a break when we
come back. Obviously, redistricting. Redistricting is a huge issue right
now in Indiana, and there is a case in front
of the Supreme Court that could affect everything. And one
of the Supreme Court justices in the Oral arguments said,
maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We'll talk all
about that. What makes sense? Kettle A Casey Show ninety
three WIBC.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
So there is a case in front of the Supreme Court.
They heard oral arguments on it the other day. And
the outcome of this case will dramatically affect redistricting, which
is obviously in front of us here in the state
of Indiana going forward. And now, look, it'll take these
justices Jim Jim Merriton for Casey today. By the way,
normally they don't rule on the big stuff, which this
(21:54):
is a big one, usually until June. They want to
get that right as they're leaving the leaving the parking.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
List, right, the decisions a renounced, Yeah, unless it's an
October decision.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Well yeah. And obviously these justices can rule at any
time they come out tomorrow if they wanted to, but
usually they save them till the end. The biggest cases
are into June. And so this may not affect what
Indian is doing right now because they won't have ruled
on it, but going forward, this is going to have
a profound impact on how these lines are drawn. And
then the next opportunity because what is in front of
(22:27):
the court is a Louisiana maps. Louisiana drew their map
same way every other state did, and a court struck
down their map. I'm trying to simplify a very complex
thing here, but basically, the Court's ruled that essentially Louisiana's
map disenfranchised minority voters by drawing one of their reps
(22:48):
or certain communities. Carving up communities to take away a
majority black district basically is what they did. And the
court said, based on the Voting Rights Act, you can't
do that, and you have to not disenfranchised communities of color,
which is essentially what Indiana would be doing under this
(23:08):
new map, where they would take Marion County, which is
a large African American population, and they would be carving
that up into several districts to take away that voting
power which tends to be democrat which is the big
thing that a lot of people are saying as of
right now, if you go forward with that, it would
get struck down based on what the law is, and
you can't do that. It would be clear that's what
the Republicans would be doing, and the Court is hearing
(23:31):
whether that's constitutional or not to force communities of color
to stay intact, minority African American communities to stay intact,
or whether that can be struck down. And based on
the arguments, you never know the judge are going to rule.
But based on the statements by the judges the other day,
it seems like they're open to striking this thing down,
which would dramatically change how congressional districts are drawn.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
Oh yes, and this has an incredible impact. And I
think what you're going to see is this is going
to happen up and in June. Uh and uh. But
the Indian General Assembly uh and in the Trump administration's viewpoint,
and people in the Assembly itself believe that they have
to do it now and uh. On State House happenings
(24:14):
the other day, Abdul, one of our Our My Our
Try hosts co hosts, said that, uh, they they he
doesn't know, it's a maybe and all that, but also
that if they do pass maps, that a court will
strike them down. And and there's some colonel of truth
there that that, uh, maybe, just maybe the legislature will
(24:37):
go into special session. I think they will. I think
they will redraw maps UH and and and and and
they're not kind of the data.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
They may not tackle Marion County. They're going to tackle
uh Northwest Indiana with Congressman Frank Mrvan Junior, a Democrat,
and try to do that. But you've got to you've
got to take some from represent and Yakam's district. You've
got to take some from represent Bear's district. Is just
it's like Mercury. It's very difficult to read district on
(25:09):
the run. And that's what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
So all of that being said, there are three liberal
justices on the Supreme Court, and I sort of separate
them based on Elena Kagan was I believe the Solicitor
General under Barack Obama, and I don't agree with her
judicial philosophy a lot of times. I don't agree with
her rulings a lot of times, but she always seems
(25:32):
like a very calm, learned person in her rulings, where like, Okay,
I don't agree with that, but you've clearly thought this
through from a judicial perspective. You're not being you don't
come off as being political on this, And I kind
of felt guys like Brier were that way. Beforehand, and
so I separate her the other two. So Demayor and
(25:54):
now this Katanji Brown Jackson woman, they are total partisans.
They are complete hacks, and they are idiot. I mean
they are. And Katanji Brown Jackson, who was the woman
appointed under Obama, is by far the worst. She's getting
lectured by Soda Mayor, who's like, lady, I'm a total
partisan and you're making us look bad. I mean, Katanji
(26:14):
Brown Jackson not only is an awful justice, she just
comes off as a complete moron.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah, she comes she there's no reason, and I think
that one of the largest you know, the ideas behind
a justice has to be reason, and it has to
be freedom, it has to be constitutional, and she does
not impress whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Okay, So here's the audio from Katanji Brown Jackson, and
this is her saying basically comparing black people to disabled
people by trying to say that majority black districts are
equivalent of disabled people not being able to enter buildings
before the Americans with Disabilities Act. Listen to this, Jim.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
A kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like
the Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the
backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to
people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect
because these folks were not able to access these buildings,
(27:19):
and it didn't matter whether the person who built the
building or the person who owned the building intended for
them to be exclusionary.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
That's irrelevant.
Speaker 5 (27:30):
Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open
to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I
don't understand why that's not what's happening here. The idea
in section two is that we are responding to current
day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities
(27:54):
and make it so that they don't have equal access
to the voting right they're disabled.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
I have a hard time getting my head around that.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
If you were saying that black people weren't allowed to vote,
then okay, but black people, no matter what the district
makeup is, are certainly able to vote the same way
anybody Else's The issue with the Americans with disabilities actually
is that people physically couldn't access the buildings or the
sidewalks or whatever, which is understandable. That's not even that's
(28:26):
not even close to being the same thing. And she
set this out loud as a sitting member of the
US Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Yeah, well, a friend of mine would say that's apples
and dump trucks. I mean, it just doesn't make any
sense whatsoever. And this is not the first time that
she has voiced a whole idea of not understanding or
able to give her opinion on it. It is very confusing,
and it's hard to believe she's a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
It is scary.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Beyond scary, it's probably good. I mean, these people are
making big, big decisions.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
So if you read the tea leaves out of this case,
now get the court can do whatever it's going to do.
And this court has previously decided like Alabama had maps
a couple of years ago that they struck down. However,
based on the comments yesterday, Roberts and Kavanaugh are the
two key ones on this issue. They seemed very much
(29:25):
in favor of allowing to essentially striking down this rule
about you got to draw minority dominant districts, and it's
going to really change how districts get drawn going forward.
Now again, it won't won't really affect Indiana, right now
because you gotta wait for the ruling on this, but
they certainly seemed open. And look, they kind of made
(29:48):
the argument, which is logical. They said, well, if we're
striking down affirmative action on these college campuses, and you've
got to admit people based on our preferential treatment based
on race or whatever, we're striking that down, how do
we faith then say we got to draw You got
to draw a coggressional district based on having a you know,
a black representative. Like that's basically and it makes sense.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
It doesn't make sense. And you know, there's something called
the brick wall which is out in Iowa where they
just they just formed the districts and it looks like
a brick wall, whereas Illinois looks like a roach shaft test,
you know, and you know, there's got to be a
way that you can draw the districts that has fared
all parties and represents data where people move. And that's
(30:33):
really the idea. When I took over as a state
senator in nineteen ninety one, they redo the districts because
in nineteen eighty Fishers barely existed. In nineteen ninety one,
it was incredibly I mean, there were only three precincts.
And when I was elected in nineteen ninety when in
nineteen ninety one, you know, the growth in Fishers had
(30:54):
grown so much in those eleven years, they had to
take it out of my district. And so that growth
you had you have to recognize growth and movement of people,
so that for instance, Indiana Senate district had to be
one hundred and thirty thousand people. A congressional district should
be five hundred thousand people. It has to be you know,
it has to be adjacent. Has there has to be
(31:15):
some reason to districts. And we'll see what the federal court,
what the Supreme Court comes up with.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
All us take a break. Yesterday the treasure Treasury Secretary
put an estimate on what the shutdown is costing the
US economy. Each day. We'll have some audio on that. Plus, Jim,
you're over sixty, so it could be bad news for you.
We'll go on It's Kettle Casey Show ninety three WIBC. Okay,
(31:41):
So the Treasury Secretary has an estimate on how much
the shutdown is going to cost the US economy. Each
day's let's fire it up. This is Scott Bessen he
is the Treasure Secretary yesterday talking about the economic impact
to the US economy.
Speaker 6 (31:56):
Thank you all for being here at Treasury today. In
the it's this shutdown. We call on the moderate Democrats
in the Senate to be heroes, be heroes, break away
from the hive of radicalism, and do something for the
American people, because we are starting to cut into a
(32:16):
muscle here. We believe that the shutdown may start costing
the US economy up to fifteen billion dollars a day.
And this is a decision the Democrats are making. And
one of the reasons that they are not being held
to task is because the mainstream media is not coming
at them the way they would have if the Republicans
(32:38):
were willing to keep the government closed. It is a
very simple decision. Mike Johnson passed a clean CR. Leader
soon has the clean CR. Three Democrats have voted for it,
and right here, right now, I am calling for the
moderate Democrats to be heroes, be heroes and reopen the
government for the American people.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I don't know if it makes you a hero for
approving Biden level spending. Look, the Democrats, I am curious
what the end game is for both sides. I will say, look,
I'm not impressed with the Republicans have improved approved Biden
level spending. I am impressed that they have held it
together this long though, and I figured they would have
(33:24):
came by now.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
I think it is impressive that they have and they've
tried to find different avenues to you know, pay the
military and and and fulfill the snap requirements and something
that you need to have a budget or to have
you know, the general Fund of the United States pay
for and uh, it's it's it's impressive. I don't know
(33:47):
what the endgame is for the Democrats. You know what
what what? What is the lynchpin uh? Senator John Kennedy
from Louisiana said one time that he thinks that maybe
five or six Democrats will get all from Schumer and say, hey,
break away from me. I'm gonna crown you about it,
and I won't vote with you, but we need to
get this back on track because this is hurting our constituencies.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Hey, real quick, Jim, I wanted to end the show
on some interesting news and no bad news for you,
because you're just just a pinch over sixty years old.
But according to study fines.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
I'm a punch over here.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Here's here's the headline. People hit their functional peak around sixty.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
Yeah, well so.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Sorry for you, but me, my best days.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
Are normally let's just say that.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So what this basically factoring is, Hey, a lot of
people think when you're younger, you know you're in better
shape to blah blah blah. But when you factor everything in.
So this was a this was an Australian study. It
was like a composite index spanning nine core constructs. When
they put all of them together, they said that your
(34:56):
peak age is sixty years old.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
Yeah, well I remember sixty. Ok. Yes, I'm sixty six,
and maybe talk to me when I'm seventy five because
I've got so much energy. I'm ready to go. I'd
be on here every day with you. Casey does a
good job.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
You know. It is interesting the things that we learn about,
like ourselves. I'm saying ourselves as a humanity, as ourselves,
as people as we get older. And I do think
there is you know, the seventy is the new sixty,
I do think, and it is because people living longer, medicine,
you know better, you know, nutrients, whatever I do think
(35:35):
that aging has changed. And I do think that getting
old or getting older older is not what it used
to be.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
And I do think you're going seventy nine year old
president right, who's running circles around his staff and doesn't
drink alcohol, doesn't smoke, he's taking relativity, good care of
himself and has these long flights, comes back and it
looks like fresh as a daisy out in the rose garden.
And that's a good example of people doing well when
(36:07):
they're older.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Here's a good one. Personality also matures with the age.
Conscientiousness and emotional stability. The two trades wist strongly linked
to career success and life satisfaction. Both increase from early
adulthood into the fifties and sixties.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
Well, Joe hoggs, it's older than I am, and that's
not the case with some.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Well, I didn't say everybody. Okay, it's just an average,
it's just a it's a compositive the collective. All right, Jim,
fabulous job. Thank you today. Your insight is so valuable
those thirty years in the Indiana Centate. Nobody does state
government like you. And I love filling in. We love
when you fill in. Thank you, my friend. All right,
we will be back tomorrow, Big Show tomorrow, bo bye,
We'll be here with us, Jim. Thank you to you, Kevin,
(36:49):
great job as always, and most importantly, thank you to
you the listener. Without you, there is no US stick around.
Tony Cats. Coming up next, Kennlly Casey Show ninety three WIBC.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
Those
New opinion piece out in the Indie Star about Joe
Hogg set and letting that wacky goofy Thomas Carl Cook
run Indianapolis and it is excellent ninety three WIBC. It's
Kennel a Casey's Show and Rob Casey's out today Jim
Merritt in for Casey, joined in studio by James Briggs.
You're like the opinion head honcho over at Indie Stars
(00:20):
that you're.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Actually opinions are I think there is a good word.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
And then look, this new piece is excellent. It's entitled
you can read it out over at Indiesstar dot com.
Hoggs that let Thomas Cook run Indianapolis. His legacy is imploding.
And the latest revelations obviously are that Thomas Cook was
involved in a relationship with this woman who was helping
delegate incentive dollars to various businesses, and many of these
(00:45):
businesses Thomas Cook ended up representing after he left the
Mayor's office. This is just so egregious that this was
going on.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I think one of the things we really learn here,
and this is sort of a point of my column
that I wrote most recently, was that Thomas Cook's in
fluence didn't just stop when he left the city in
twenty twenty, and again for hr reasons. He left because
it was found that he was in an inappropriate relationship,
so he was forced to resign from the city in
twenty twenty. But I think this new reporting shows that
his influence didn't stop there. It continued even as he
(01:14):
existed it sort of peripheral to city government, and I
think that's like a new level to the problematic relationship
that he had with the city that we're seeing right now.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
It was interesting because we played earlier Russ McQuaid from
Fox fifty nine caught up with hog set somewhere, and
his responses to Russ McQuay, like, just there's appears to
be a total lack of understanding of why this is
a big deal, of why people are set about this,
and what even was taking place and why was so inappropriate.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah, and so one of the things I tried to
do in this column that we're talking about is take
a step back and show like what I think the
big picture problem is here, and it is that Mayor
Joe hogg Sett took office and sort of abdicated his
role as leader of the city and sort of let
Thomas Cook take over. And so we've been talking about
Thomas Cook for over a year now, and he's still
sort of an abstract figure, Like I don't know that
(02:05):
many people in your audience like know anything about him
or why we're talking about him. Do you mind if
I take you down a little bit of a rabbit
hole right now? Please go all the rabbit holes? So,
and I want to be clear at top, I don't
mean this to say like you got to hand it
to Thomas Cook. I don't want anyone to be my takeaway.
But Thomas Cook was really good at his job, and
I want to sort of set the scene for why
he was so effective and why he was given this
(02:27):
so much free reign over the mayor's office. Do you
guys remember and I'm sure you do at WIBC when
Jefferson Shreeve was running for mayor in twenty twenty three
and he came out in favor of gun control.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Oh yes, they called me the day before and said
please be nice to us.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Yes, we remember that very well. So that's not gonna fly.
So that was Thomas Cook. That happened because of Thomas Cook.
So the mayor's campaign. I had a long term strategy
and it was multi pronged. First, the mayor introduced his
own gun control measures, which were very popular among the
electorate in Indianapolis, and that happened in May of twenty
twenty three. At the same time, they were pounding Jefferson
(03:02):
Shreve on his NRA affiliation, like just bludgeoning him and
he got And by the way, they this was told
to me ahead of time that our point here, we're
going to roll out some.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Some gun control proposals.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
We're going to hit Shreve on his NRA affiliation, and
we're going to hurt him so badly that he is
going to have to come out in favor of gun control.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
And I might tell you.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
That they say we're going to do this.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
In my reaction to that at the time from hearing
that was like, okay, you know whatever, Like the Republican
candidate for mayor is going to come out in favor
of gun control, sure whatever. And I mean, I'll be damned.
It happened literally exactly as they planned it.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
It was.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
I mean, when Jefferson Shreve was standing up there talking about,
you know, saying things like assault style rifles, the terminology
that drives Republicans insane.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
All I could think was that was Thomas Cook. He
did that.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
James Briggs from Dye Stars our guest. He's got a
fabulous new piece out about Joe hog set and and
he's basically giving free rein to Thomas Carl Cook.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Jim, Well, there's a certain arrogance about this administration from
day one. And you we talked this morning about the
AEES situation with the ray case and and and regardless
of the rappayer, they come out and and kind of
throw up the white flag with AES and now and
also this is very good reporting by yourself along with
(04:20):
mir Indianapolis Star. It almost it views almost the arrogance
of we're going to get through this time frame, this
six minute media and we're going to move on to
the next topic. And his treatment Russ McQuay, who is
a very good member, very quality, credible member of the
news media, and these these comments that he's giving almost
(04:44):
like flicking with him away like a fly. You must
feel that like on a daily basis with the Mayor's office.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Yeah, I mean, obviously the mayor wants to move on
from this, and you know, I guess I'll go back
to the point I was just hammering on. The reason
he can't move on from this is because this just
keeps coming up. There is a new revelation every few
weeks or every few months, and he's, you know, sort
of what I was talking about earlier, is like, because
of the competency that Thomas Cook revealed in a number
of areas running campaigns, running city government, the mayor sort
(05:11):
of entrusted him with everything and just let him run
away with everything. And because that was the case, now
the mayor is sort of stuck being responsible for all
of these things that Thomas Cook did. So far, we
don't know that the mayor is personally culpable for any
ethical lapses, for any personal, you know, inappropriate behavior. The
mayor himself none of this ties directly back to him.
But because he just sort of seeded leadership to Thomas
(05:33):
Cook and let him run away in all of these
different areas of city government and campaigns, now this story
won't go away.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So the mayor, I'm sure, yeah, he wants it to
go away.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
He wants he doesn't want to talk to Rus mcway,
He doesn't want to talk to anyone about to him.
He would like this to just be old news. He's
got you know, this is gonna be a long two years, right,
He's got a lot of time left in his third term.
But these stories keep coming out, and it's because of
all the things that Thomas Cook was unable to do
under the mayor's you know, a leadership.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
James Ricks from Indie Star is our guest. So you
write a lot about people, and I think you write
very well about people, and I think you sort of
take angles on people that most people don't think about.
That's why they read your columns. The Thomas Cook thing
is fascinating to me because you're right, from a purely
political perspective, the guy was really good at his job,
yet he exhibited zero, apparently self control in terms of
(06:25):
behaving in decent office society. And that's such a weird
like dichotomy that, on one hand, this guy is so
good at this thing, but yet that can't do the
most basic of stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Unfortunately too, I think the political environment is a place
where that's not all uncommon. I mean, we've had a
lot of these types of stories unfortunately in you know,
Indiana and Indianapolis politics in the last several years.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Especially at the state level.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
I mean, there have been, you know a lot of
stories like this, So I would say what you're describing is,
you know, it really does stick out, but it's also
extremely common, you know in this like and and you
know it's a lot of men sort of driving these things,
and you know, I'm sure you know, you know, Senator Merritt,
you can sort of talk about the State House a
little bit in that regard because there are a lot
of stories that have been over there over the years.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
But this happens a lot in politics.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Unfortunately, Jimmy after ever yelled anybody for being inappropriate and
say Briggs is gonna find out about this, You're gonna
get big trouble.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
There are times my office was called the woodshed, and
so we've had some members in my office when I
was caucus chairman, we had to have a conversation about
treatment of staff or treatment of fellow senators or people
in the state House. So, yeah, it happens in every organization,
no question about it.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
And I suspect that's part of the like why the
mayor still like thinking you can just move past this too,
because this level of behavior has been accepted for so
long in so many different environments and it's not acceptable
right now. And I think the reporting just continues to
show that what Thomas Cook was allowed to do under
the mayor's watch was completely inappropriate. It should and the
mayor should have known about it. If he didn't know
(07:53):
about it, which he has said, then he should have
known about it and it should have been stopped.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
And that's why this keeps going on.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
My story about Thomas Cook is when I was running
for mayor and election morning came and uh, I got
a text from Thomas Carl Cook and he said, when
you when you throw up the white flag at six,
this is the number you called.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Is that real?
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Oh? Absolutely, that's I was never so stunned at the
at the I was so surprised.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
And you know, literally said that when you throw up
the white flag at six, this is the number you call.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Yes to get a hold of mayor. When you throw
up a white flag, this is the number you should
call it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And what did you do? You threw up the white flag?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Right, I about threw up.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Just gonna run again?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
No, I don't think so. I at first, nothing.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Else to do. Nobody's gonna employ him.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
It's it's it's getting bad.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
I think there was a period where I thought, maybe
maybe he does because of what you're saying. I mean,
I think we know he said before he wasn't gonna
run for a third term than he did, and I
think much of that can be attributed to the fact
that he just doesn't have anything better to do. Somebody
really should have found him a job, you know, a
couple of years ago. We could have avoided some of this,
at least at least a fallout.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Certainly. See, I'm sixty six. He was a senior when
I was a freshman, So he's he's heading towards seventy.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, I forget his age off the top of my head, but.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Yeah, I mean that was I interviewed him, you know,
years ago, and that was sort of his point about
why he wasn't going to run for a third term.
From what he told me, he sort of did the math,
like here's the age. I'lb So, no, I'm not interested
in that. Well, then he did it. There was a
time where I thought maybe he would run for a
fourth term, but I don't see that at all.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Right now, Hey, real quick, before he lets you go
just off topic, but you broke the story that Bobai
is running for Secretary of State, and I thought the
piece was interesting. Do you we're gonna have him on tomorrow?
Do you think he can do it? Can he break
the Republican cabal in the state.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
I think it's certainly possible.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
I mean, we're seeing right now he's fundraising at you know,
a really great pace, especially for a Democrat. I think,
you know, the odds are always against him. I said this
in a different column. If I had to put money
on it, my money would be no, he'll lose. But
at the same time, I think Republican keep doing unpopular things.
I mean this, you know, one of the points of
your show lately has been Republicans keep doing unpopular things.
And I think there's a there is a point, you know,
(10:08):
whether it is months away or years away, there is
a point when the electorate will get tired of that
and they will sort of rebel against the party that
just keeps keeps sticking it down people's throats and saying
deal with it. People don't want to deal with it forever.
So someday a Democrat is going to win in Indiana,
and Bobai is, you know, certainly the best near term
opportunity that Democrats have.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
It's a great piece. Everybody go read it. Thomas or
a hog set. Let Thomas Cook run. Indianapolis's legacy is inploding.
James Briggs, thank you, thanks for having me. It's Kennel
A Casey Show, ninety three WIBC. All right, so we've
been teasing this all show. You're here, merit, so I
want to put your expertise to work. It's Kennel A
Casey Show and Rob Jim Merriton for Casey. Today. You
(10:48):
are on this i U r C Nominating Committee. Correct,
That is the Indiana Utility Regulatory Committee. And there are
going to be three vacancies on this committee. Yes, that
will be the people who will decide whether rate utility
rates go up going forward.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
And we've had some fun with it. We joked about
Casey was gonna apply for the thing and blah blah blah.
But I did want to take, you know, in all seriousness,
some opportunity while you're here, and we have you know,
more than just your regular segment with us on Wednesdays
to sort of work through how this whole process works.
Because this is a massive deal for every Hoosier, whether
you live in Indianapolis, or you live in Petersburg or Attica,
(11:28):
or you know, Greenwood or wherever, because wherever you live,
you have a utility that is providing power to you
and gas and et cetera. And these people you nominate
and if the governor accepts them, will be the people
who decide whether your rates go up. So I thought
we just kind of worked through a high level how
this process works and help people understand, you know, exactly
(11:51):
what's going on.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And not put people to sleep while we're talking about that.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
That's what we knew, Jim, how we're gonna do this
and make it enter. You got me, Jim, and over entertaining.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
The meat and potatoes of this are is that the IRC,
the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, is made up of five commissioners.
One is Chairman Houston, who is retiring in December two.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
That's the guy what runs the meeting.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Yes, yes, he's the chairman. He ministered.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
It's sort of like the Supreme Court where when John
Roberts got nominated the Supreme Court under George Bush, he's
not only nominated the Supreme Court, but to be the
Chief Justice.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
That's exactly, okay. And the governor is in that position
with the chairman.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
So whoever you nominate for chairman is who the chairman
is going to be? Right, okay?
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Right?
Speaker 4 (12:30):
And Wes Bennett, who was retiring is a commissioner, a
commissioner freeman who is and these are Republicans and Democrats,
so you and it's very confusing, but there has to
be there have to be both parties represented on the commission.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Okay. So of these three seats, and this is important
because the way the thing is structured, you have to
have so many Democrats, so many Republicans, right, so I
think it's like three and two three Republicans to Democrats.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Is that? Yes? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Yes, So one of these people you nominate has to
be a Democrat and one of them who you nominate
has to be a Republican. And then the chairman is
its own separate things. So I want to just focus
on the two like rank and file people going.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
To rank and file are going to be decided this month.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yeah, so like let's just say, now, where would I fit,
because I'm apparently not a Republican and good standing you
may have heard about this, would I fit as a
Republican or.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Well, it all depends if you vote in the primary.
I have I voted in all the primary, and did
you vote republican? I did vote? Okay, Well a Republican
then okay, very and and that's and and I think
it needs to be not all Republican, not all Democrats
most states. Not in most states. There are a large
majority of states that actually vote. Uh, these are elected
(13:47):
positions that are in other states. So you could people
run on low low energy rates in other states. Oh
that's wild. Yeah, I don't. I don't like that. I
think they your see and it's it's since nineteen ninety
one when I understand it. It really has evolved into
a almost like a judicial position where you have to
(14:08):
be a judge. It takes a lot of reading, it
takes a lot of I call it the cave because
you're really not public. I would not be a good
member because I like being on shows like this, being
out in public. But people retiring are are good people.
This Nominating Commission, what we do is we come forward
(14:31):
and we have hearings and this is all transparent. This
is all online. You can watch every interview and we
will interview. Watch the interviews. Yes you can. Yes, it's
all transparent.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
And well, now I really would have applied, but I
known I could have got an interview.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Well, there will be an executive session on Monday, this
coming Monday. That is not this executive session that is
behind closed doors. But all the interviews are online. You
can watch them so real quick.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
So you got these applications, all these the window has closed.
All these people sent you applications. And then what you
guys kind of have a closed door debate on who
do we want to interview? And yes, and then they
that goes out publicly.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
And I stepped away from the Senate in twenty twenty,
and I was I was nominated Sarah Bray, the President
of the Senate. I'm his his selection to be on
this nominating committee. Each member of the House caucus and
Senate caucuses have a nominee along with the governor. And
so this is this is from every corner people on
(15:35):
this nominating commission. And so we'll we will, we will
decide who we're gonna who we're gonna interview, and how.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Many how many people you normally interview is like five.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Well, you know, in years past we've had to pull
people off the street virtually.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
But they didn't know this job paid one hundred and
fifty grand.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
No, no, and it doesn't. And it's so quiet, and
it should be quiet because util your rates are very
important and you need to be judicious in the way
you you select these people and the way these people serve.
And so you're under a rock when you're a commissioner.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Okay, so how are you gonna square this? Because the
governor who will make the final call. Right, just because
you nominate somebody, the governor can say, now don't like
that person, Yeah, yeah, go back and do it again.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
Yes, Well, we'll nominate several people for each spot, and
the what you call the rank and file those two
and then we'll we'll send those nominations to the governor.
And and uh, like, if you.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Put Rob Kendall's name down as the Republican, you would
be told you're going to need to do this again, right,
so he doesn't have to take who you suggest.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, yeah, that's exactly right. Our our friend Aaron Sheridan
has said she's going to apply, and uh, and I
don't know if she actually did or not, but I'll
talk to anybody you know this. I talk to you,
and I'll talk I'll talk to you, Jesse and uh,
but but but I encourage the deadline's gone by. But
(17:01):
when I encourage anybody to apply, including cases.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Can I have an extended filing windows like my taxes?
Speaker 4 (17:08):
If I were chairman, then yes, but I'm not chairman
nominating commission.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
You should probably walk in there go my friend say
it exactly like this. My friend Rob Kendall would like
to apply. Can we give him a courtesy?
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Abdul too?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it'll.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Go over great.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Okay, So, so how are you going to square? Because
Braun seems to have given very specific, basically instructions that
he wants somebody who is not going to raise utility rates.
I mean, at least that's sort of what it seemed
like from the the stuff he's been saying.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
I think a person he named a new consumer counselor, right,
and one of the instructions was that he doesn't like
rate increases.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Look, and I think part of the struggle is that
every so often you may need to raise rates. However,
the rate increases have gotten so out of control and
so frequent that now the people are out with the
pitchforks and long knives, right, So how do you square
that with what you having, you know, some level of
(18:05):
expertise background in this what you think might need to
happen versus sort of the one the public sentiment, but
to the very what appeared to be clear instructions from
the governor. How do you guys square that well?
Speaker 4 (18:17):
As you know, I've met with some of the people
that are candidates, and I've and I've had conversations over
the phone. I'm an open book about this. What I
what I tell people is this entity. If you like media,
this is not a job for you. You've got to
be independent. You've got to be well read. You've got
to have interest in the minutia, and you've you've got
(18:39):
to understand detail. You've got to understand rates, you've got
to understand people. You've got to have judicial, judicious manner
about you. You have got to be completely immersed in
this very very important job. And regardless of what Joe
hoggs that's doing the city County building with AEES, you've
got to keep your eye on the ball on exactly
(19:00):
what's good for the rappair, what's good for the utility,
and and and understand that you've got industrial, you've got commercial,
and you've got residential, and they all have to not
be happy but respect and understand your decisions.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
What's the Is it a pretty quick time frame like
from when you guys decide to interview people? Will it
be named?
Speaker 4 (19:24):
I think? I think the governor Energy is something that
I tell Secretary Suzi Jevrowski this all the time. Energy
is this administration? Now?
Speaker 1 (19:34):
This is wait, wait real quick, because you brought her up,
does she regret going to that dinner and basically their
lunch and basically saying that these companies should sue municipality and.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
We don't talk about that. What we talk about is
really the future of energy, and she knows how much
I'm appreciative the fact that nuclear has to be a
part of that energy. But what what what we what
we talk about is is the idea that we need.
We need eight individuals who are willing to put their
nose to the grindstone and and and be independent. But
(20:05):
understanding that that hopefully the Trump administration takes kind of
the federal push on rates down with all the environmental
uh uh minutia that utilities have to go through and
we're getting into the into the in the swamp here
with issues. But bottom line is that that these individuals
(20:25):
who we nominate that we send the governor understand that
rates are important, but as well as the energy world
is changing and and the the and the bronze people
are trying to bring the real world to Indiana with
uh different kinds of energy that is going to power
this future of the Indiana.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
See, that wasn't boring at all. We tried, I mean
at least not to me.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Well, I hope, I hope our listeners. Maybe you'll have
me back, maybe not. But anyway, it is interesting because
you get your utility bill every month.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Yeah, and this going forward, this is important to you
now that I know you're on that commission. If anybody
raises my rate, I'm blaming you. I'm sending it to
your house. We'll have to have hammer on again this week.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Can puss each other.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Out a all right, let's take a break when we
come back. Obviously, redistricting. Redistricting is a huge issue right
now in Indiana, and there is a case in front
of the Supreme Court that could affect everything. And one
of the Supreme Court justices in the Oral arguments said,
maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We'll talk all
about that. What makes sense? Kettle A Casey Show ninety
three WIBC.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
So there is a case in front of the Supreme Court.
They heard oral arguments on it the other day. And
the outcome of this case will dramatically affect redistricting, which
is obviously in front of us here in the state
of Indiana going forward. And now, look, it'll take these
justices Jim Jim Merriton for Casey today. By the way,
normally they don't rule on the big stuff, which this
(21:54):
is a big one, usually until June. They want to
get that right as they're leaving the leaving the parking.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
List, right, the decisions a renounced, Yeah, unless it's an
October decision.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Well yeah. And obviously these justices can rule at any
time they come out tomorrow if they wanted to, but
usually they save them till the end. The biggest cases
are into June. And so this may not affect what
Indian is doing right now because they won't have ruled
on it, but going forward, this is going to have
a profound impact on how these lines are drawn. And
then the next opportunity because what is in front of
(22:27):
the court is a Louisiana maps. Louisiana drew their map
same way every other state did, and a court struck
down their map. I'm trying to simplify a very complex
thing here, but basically, the Court's ruled that essentially Louisiana's
map disenfranchised minority voters by drawing one of their reps
(22:48):
or certain communities. Carving up communities to take away a
majority black district basically is what they did. And the
court said, based on the Voting Rights Act, you can't
do that, and you have to not disenfranchised communities of color,
which is essentially what Indiana would be doing under this
(23:08):
new map, where they would take Marion County, which is
a large African American population, and they would be carving
that up into several districts to take away that voting
power which tends to be democrat which is the big
thing that a lot of people are saying as of
right now, if you go forward with that, it would
get struck down based on what the law is, and
you can't do that. It would be clear that's what
the Republicans would be doing, and the Court is hearing
(23:31):
whether that's constitutional or not to force communities of color
to stay intact, minority African American communities to stay intact,
or whether that can be struck down. And based on
the arguments, you never know the judge are going to rule.
But based on the statements by the judges the other day,
it seems like they're open to striking this thing down,
which would dramatically change how congressional districts are drawn.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
Oh yes, and this has an incredible impact. And I
think what you're going to see is this is going
to happen up and in June. Uh and uh. But
the Indian General Assembly uh and in the Trump administration's viewpoint,
and people in the Assembly itself believe that they have
to do it now and uh. On State House happenings
(24:14):
the other day, Abdul, one of our Our My Our
Try hosts co hosts, said that, uh, they they he
doesn't know, it's a maybe and all that, but also
that if they do pass maps, that a court will
strike them down. And and there's some colonel of truth
there that that, uh, maybe, just maybe the legislature will
(24:37):
go into special session. I think they will. I think
they will redraw maps UH and and and and and
they're not kind of the data.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
They may not tackle Marion County. They're going to tackle
uh Northwest Indiana with Congressman Frank Mrvan Junior, a Democrat,
and try to do that. But you've got to you've
got to take some from represent and Yakam's district. You've
got to take some from represent Bear's district. Is just
it's like Mercury. It's very difficult to read district on
(25:09):
the run. And that's what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
So all of that being said, there are three liberal
justices on the Supreme Court, and I sort of separate
them based on Elena Kagan was I believe the Solicitor
General under Barack Obama, and I don't agree with her
judicial philosophy a lot of times. I don't agree with
her rulings a lot of times, but she always seems
(25:32):
like a very calm, learned person in her rulings, where like, Okay,
I don't agree with that, but you've clearly thought this
through from a judicial perspective. You're not being you don't
come off as being political on this, And I kind
of felt guys like Brier were that way. Beforehand, and
so I separate her the other two. So Demayor and
(25:54):
now this Katanji Brown Jackson woman, they are total partisans.
They are complete hacks, and they are idiot. I mean
they are. And Katanji Brown Jackson, who was the woman
appointed under Obama, is by far the worst. She's getting
lectured by Soda Mayor, who's like, lady, I'm a total
partisan and you're making us look bad. I mean, Katanji
(26:14):
Brown Jackson not only is an awful justice, she just
comes off as a complete moron.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah, she comes she there's no reason, and I think
that one of the largest you know, the ideas behind
a justice has to be reason, and it has to
be freedom, it has to be constitutional, and she does
not impress whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Okay, So here's the audio from Katanji Brown Jackson, and
this is her saying basically comparing black people to disabled
people by trying to say that majority black districts are
equivalent of disabled people not being able to enter buildings
before the Americans with Disabilities Act. Listen to this, Jim.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
A kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like
the Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the
backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to
people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect
because these folks were not able to access these buildings,
(27:19):
and it didn't matter whether the person who built the
building or the person who owned the building intended for
them to be exclusionary.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
That's irrelevant.
Speaker 5 (27:30):
Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open
to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I
don't understand why that's not what's happening here. The idea
in section two is that we are responding to current
day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities
(27:54):
and make it so that they don't have equal access
to the voting right they're disabled.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
I have a hard time getting my head around that.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
If you were saying that black people weren't allowed to vote,
then okay, but black people, no matter what the district
makeup is, are certainly able to vote the same way
anybody Else's The issue with the Americans with disabilities actually
is that people physically couldn't access the buildings or the
sidewalks or whatever, which is understandable. That's not even that's
(28:26):
not even close to being the same thing. And she
set this out loud as a sitting member of the
US Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Yeah, well, a friend of mine would say that's apples
and dump trucks. I mean, it just doesn't make any
sense whatsoever. And this is not the first time that
she has voiced a whole idea of not understanding or
able to give her opinion on it. It is very confusing,
and it's hard to believe she's a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
It is scary.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Beyond scary, it's probably good. I mean, these people are
making big, big decisions.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
So if you read the tea leaves out of this case,
now get the court can do whatever it's going to do.
And this court has previously decided like Alabama had maps
a couple of years ago that they struck down. However,
based on the comments yesterday, Roberts and Kavanaugh are the
two key ones on this issue. They seemed very much
(29:25):
in favor of allowing to essentially striking down this rule
about you got to draw minority dominant districts, and it's
going to really change how districts get drawn going forward.
Now again, it won't won't really affect Indiana, right now
because you gotta wait for the ruling on this, but
they certainly seemed open. And look, they kind of made
(29:48):
the argument, which is logical. They said, well, if we're
striking down affirmative action on these college campuses, and you've
got to admit people based on our preferential treatment based
on race or whatever, we're striking that down, how do
we faith then say we got to draw You got
to draw a coggressional district based on having a you know,
a black representative. Like that's basically and it makes sense.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
It doesn't make sense. And you know, there's something called
the brick wall which is out in Iowa where they
just they just formed the districts and it looks like
a brick wall, whereas Illinois looks like a roach shaft test,
you know, and you know, there's got to be a
way that you can draw the districts that has fared
all parties and represents data where people move. And that's
(30:33):
really the idea. When I took over as a state
senator in nineteen ninety one, they redo the districts because
in nineteen eighty Fishers barely existed. In nineteen ninety one,
it was incredibly I mean, there were only three precincts.
And when I was elected in nineteen ninety when in
nineteen ninety one, you know, the growth in Fishers had
(30:54):
grown so much in those eleven years, they had to
take it out of my district. And so that growth
you had you have to recognize growth and movement of people,
so that for instance, Indiana Senate district had to be
one hundred and thirty thousand people. A congressional district should
be five hundred thousand people. It has to be you know,
it has to be adjacent. Has there has to be
(31:15):
some reason to districts. And we'll see what the federal court,
what the Supreme Court comes up with.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
All us take a break. Yesterday the treasure Treasury Secretary
put an estimate on what the shutdown is costing the
US economy. Each day. We'll have some audio on that. Plus, Jim,
you're over sixty, so it could be bad news for you.
We'll go on It's Kettle Casey Show ninety three WIBC. Okay,
(31:41):
So the Treasury Secretary has an estimate on how much
the shutdown is going to cost the US economy. Each
day's let's fire it up. This is Scott Bessen he
is the Treasure Secretary yesterday talking about the economic impact
to the US economy.
Speaker 6 (31:56):
Thank you all for being here at Treasury today. In
the it's this shutdown. We call on the moderate Democrats
in the Senate to be heroes, be heroes, break away
from the hive of radicalism, and do something for the
American people, because we are starting to cut into a
(32:16):
muscle here. We believe that the shutdown may start costing
the US economy up to fifteen billion dollars a day.
And this is a decision the Democrats are making. And
one of the reasons that they are not being held
to task is because the mainstream media is not coming
at them the way they would have if the Republicans
(32:38):
were willing to keep the government closed. It is a
very simple decision. Mike Johnson passed a clean CR. Leader
soon has the clean CR. Three Democrats have voted for it,
and right here, right now, I am calling for the
moderate Democrats to be heroes, be heroes and reopen the
government for the American people.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I don't know if it makes you a hero for
approving Biden level spending. Look, the Democrats, I am curious
what the end game is for both sides. I will say, look,
I'm not impressed with the Republicans have improved approved Biden
level spending. I am impressed that they have held it
together this long though, and I figured they would have
(33:24):
came by now.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
I think it is impressive that they have and they've
tried to find different avenues to you know, pay the
military and and and fulfill the snap requirements and something
that you need to have a budget or to have
you know, the general Fund of the United States pay
for and uh, it's it's it's impressive. I don't know
(33:47):
what the endgame is for the Democrats. You know what
what what? What is the lynchpin uh? Senator John Kennedy
from Louisiana said one time that he thinks that maybe
five or six Democrats will get all from Schumer and say, hey,
break away from me. I'm gonna crown you about it,
and I won't vote with you, but we need to
get this back on track because this is hurting our constituencies.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Hey, real quick, Jim, I wanted to end the show
on some interesting news and no bad news for you,
because you're just just a pinch over sixty years old.
But according to study fines.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
I'm a punch over here.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Here's here's the headline. People hit their functional peak around sixty.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
Yeah, well so.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Sorry for you, but me, my best days.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
Are normally let's just say that.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So what this basically factoring is, Hey, a lot of
people think when you're younger, you know you're in better
shape to blah blah blah. But when you factor everything in.
So this was a this was an Australian study. It
was like a composite index spanning nine core constructs. When
they put all of them together, they said that your
(34:56):
peak age is sixty years old.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
Yeah, well I remember sixty. Ok. Yes, I'm sixty six,
and maybe talk to me when I'm seventy five because
I've got so much energy. I'm ready to go. I'd
be on here every day with you. Casey does a
good job.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
You know. It is interesting the things that we learn about,
like ourselves. I'm saying ourselves as a humanity, as ourselves,
as people as we get older. And I do think
there is you know, the seventy is the new sixty,
I do think, and it is because people living longer, medicine,
you know better, you know, nutrients, whatever I do think
(35:35):
that aging has changed. And I do think that getting
old or getting older older is not what it used
to be.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
And I do think you're going seventy nine year old
president right, who's running circles around his staff and doesn't
drink alcohol, doesn't smoke, he's taking relativity, good care of
himself and has these long flights, comes back and it
looks like fresh as a daisy out in the rose garden.
And that's a good example of people doing well when
(36:07):
they're older.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Here's a good one. Personality also matures with the age.
Conscientiousness and emotional stability. The two trades wist strongly linked
to career success and life satisfaction. Both increase from early
adulthood into the fifties and sixties.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
Well, Joe hoggs, it's older than I am, and that's
not the case with some.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Well, I didn't say everybody. Okay, it's just an average,
it's just a it's a compositive the collective. All right, Jim,
fabulous job. Thank you today. Your insight is so valuable
those thirty years in the Indiana Centate. Nobody does state
government like you. And I love filling in. We love
when you fill in. Thank you, my friend. All right,
we will be back tomorrow, Big Show tomorrow, bo bye,
We'll be here with us, Jim. Thank you to you, Kevin,
(36:49):
great job as always, and most importantly, thank you to
you the listener. Without you, there is no US stick around.
Tony Cats. Coming up next, Kennlly Casey Show ninety three WIBC.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
Those
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.