Progressive Indiana Network Special Events

Virtual Town Hall w/ Dr. Tim Peck

https://progressiveindiana.net [http://progressiveindiana.net/] https://timpeckforcongress.com/ [https://timpeckforcongress.com/] SUMMARY: With Indiana’s May 5th primary two days out, the Progressive Indiana Network hosted its final virtual town hall of the primary season, featuring Dr. Tim Peck, emergency physician and Democratic candidate for Indiana’s 9th Congressional District. Peck, who lost the 2024 general election to Republican incumbent Erin Houchin, is making his second run for the seat covering Indiana’s 18 southeastern counties. Over the course of the hour, Peck made the case for a grassroots, no-corporate-PAC campaign rooted in his medical experience, discussing healthcare affordability, the Supreme Court, AI and data centers, the Fifth Circuit’s mifepristone ruling, bipartisan dealmaking, and his evolving view of corporations — closing with a pitch for why this cycle is different from 2024 and how viewers can join his movement before Tuesday. Progressive Indiana Network is subscriber-supported independent media. To help us continue doing this work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. IN DEPTH: 00:00:21 Opening Remarks - Scott introduces the show as PIN’s final virtual town hall of the primary season, two days before the May 5th primary - Peck thanks Scott for the work PIN does to bring educated voters to the polls and introduces himself as an emergency physician living on a farm in Clark County, across the river from Louisville - Peck frames his campaign around a door-knocking encounter: a constituent who told him “it costs too much to go to work,” citing gas, credit card interest, housing, childcare, student debt, and healthcare premiums - Peck notes that only six of IN-9’s 18 counties can deliver babies, calling the district a microcosm of rural healthcare collapse - Peck says he has sworn off all corporate PAC money and has built a movement of 1,000 volunteers who have knocked over 10,000 doors 00:06:02 Viewer Question (Sarah, web form): Will you accept corporate PAC money, and how do you guard against taking it indirectly through leadership PACs? - Peck says he signed on with roughly 70 candidates nationwide to a pledge [https://www.take-bac-congress.us/] covering term limits, no individual stock trading, no corporate PAC money, Supreme Court ethics transparency, and a five-year post-office lobbying moratorium - Peck defines his pledge broadly: he also refuses dark money PACs and money from Democratic incumbents who themselves take corporate PAC money — including declining a check offer from Rep. Andre Carson - Peck argues that taking corporate PAC money creates a structural conflict of interest: when Chase Bank calls, you cancel your constituent meeting; without that money, you don’t - Peck says the national Democratic Party — including the progressive wing — has abandoned Indiana, which actually gives him freedom to run the campaign Hoosiers deserve rather than one dictated by national party strategy 00:12:03 Viewer Question (Christine, YouTube): What type of Democrat do you consider yourself? - Peck calls himself a left-of-center Democrat with progressive ideals who is willing to work with those who don’t share all of them — distinguishing that from moderation - Peck says labels obscure more than they reveal; he knocked on a door that same day belonging to a union worker with a Trump yard sign who voted for Trump three times and is now unhappy with him - Peck argues that working with Republicans isn’t ideological compromise but legislative strategy: there is bipartisan support for things like the PRO Act that simply never gets to the floor because Mike Johnson blocks it - Scott offers “pragmatic progressive” as a label; Peck says he’ll take it 00:16:13 What do we do about the Supreme Court? - Peck opposes court expansion, calling it the nuclear option — like eliminating the filibuster, it only empowers whoever holds power at the moment - Peck’s path forward: pass Amy Klobuchar’s anti-mid-decade gerrymandering bill, enact binding Supreme Court ethics legislation, win the presidency to appoint new justices, and use impeachment only once ethics laws are in place and being violated - Peck says he does not support using impeachment for messaging purposes, but that Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and John Roberts cannot be impeached yet because Congress has not yet passed the ethics laws that would make their conduct clearly illegal - Peck frames the long game: chip away at the structural damage, neutralize the court over time, and focus on winning elections rather than procedural shortcuts 00:22:04 How do you tackle healthcare affordability and get toward universal coverage? - Peck believes healthcare is a human right but does not think Medicare for All is achievable now, and argues Medicare itself has serious flaws: no dental, vision, or hearing coverage; 20% of recipients still carry medical debt; no long-term care coverage; and lengthy ICU stays can bankrupt patients - Peck’s plan centers on weakening insurance monopolies through antitrust enforcement: UnitedHealth owns Optum (a physician network), nursing homes, pharmacy benefit managers, and NP groups — Aetna and CVS have merged similarly - Peck wants to haul insurance executives before Congress and demand an accounting of how much Medicare payroll tax money went to executive bonuses and shareholder payouts - Peck calls for banning prior authorization (an insurance company making a medical decision) and eliminating pharmacy benefit managers, which he says extract money from the system with no added value — both have bipartisan support - Peck argues that Citizens United is the real obstacle to full Medicare for All; until corporate money is out of politics, the insurance industry has too much power to be displaced entirely 00:32:21 Viewer Question (Anonymous, web form): Your career has ties [https://strictlyvc.com/tag/ali-rowghani/] to Sam Altman of OpenAI and Joe Lonsdale of Palantir. Your FEC filings [https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H4IN09163/] show a $2,000 donation from Brian Bloom, VP of Millennium hedge fund. Will your votes on AI and tech policy protect Hoosier working families or will your industry connections sway you? - Peck says the Bloom donation came from a childhood friend who is a Democrat, not from Millennium as an institution - Peck focuses on data centers as the most immediate AI policy question: deals are being struck in backrooms, contracts signed, and only then is the public invited to discuss — he calls this insane and in need of regulation - Peck draws a parallel to Indiana’s casino licensing process, where communities had robust public input and could negotiate community benefits (schools, libraries, a YMCA) before deals closed — data centers should work the same way - Peck says he is directly affected: a massive Facebook data center is being built in Clark County, his home county, and he has no meaningful say over its electricity or water consumption 00:38:10 Viewer Question (Anonymous, web form): You suggested people use ChatGPT to vet candidates. Where do you stand on AI use and responsible guardrails? - Peck says he recommended ChatGPT because voters are uninformed — he knocked on doors during early voting and met people who had already cast a ballot without knowing who they voted for in his race; any research tool is better than none, but he stressed using the cited references - Peck says the incumbent, Erin Houchin, sits on tech and crypto policy committees while taking heavy money from Silicon Valley VCs and voting for maximum deregulation — he wants the opposite - Peck argues AI should be treated like nuclear energy: even when driven by private industry, technologies that pose existential risks require public ownership of the decision-making process - Peck says AI development needs to be slowed down and subjected to the same kind of public discourse and regulatory guardrails applied to other civilization-scale technologies 00:43:06 Viewer Question (Ruth, web form): The Fifth Circuit just ruled mifepristone cannot be sent by mail. Does this improve patient safety? - Peck flatly says no — the “patient safety” rationale from the court is false; mifepristone is a very safe drug, and the program of telemedicine prescribing followed by mail delivery is one he helped build with Planned Parenthood - Peck says what is actually unsafe is forcing patients to travel great distances, and describes the practical reality in his ER: when a pregnant patient faces a life-or-death situation, his first call legally has to go to a hospital lawyer before he can make a medical decision — that is the government in his exam room - Peck notes an unusual political wrinkle: pharma companies want the mail program to continue and will spend money fighting the ruling — watch where that money goes - Peck strongly supports restoring mifepristone access by mail and opposes government interference in medical decision-making 00:46:29 Can you name an issue where you’d vote with Republicans over most Democrats, or with the party over a majority of your constituents? - Peck says his commitment on rights issues — abortion, LGBTQ — is grounded in the First Amendment and will not waver regardless of constituent polling; those are not negotiating positions - Peck says working with Republicans is about the pre-floor process: finding issues with genuine bipartisan alignment, doing the work to get a bill to the floor, and then voting on whatever imperfect bill emerges in the best interest of his constituents - Peck points to universal pre-K as an example of surprising Republican support, including GOP-authored proposals to extend the CBO scoring window to 30 years so the long-term economic benefits become visible - Peck reiterates the mifepristone situation as a live example: sometimes pharma and the right align with the right outcome, and you take the win 00:51:13 Is there a position you’ve evolved on over the years? - Peck says his biggest evolution is his view of corporations: he used to think more highly of them, until he personally experienced and came to fully understand that every corporate board charter legally places the shareholder first — above employees, patients, and customers - Peck says that when push comes to shove, corporations will always revert to what the charter demands, which will not be in the interest of regular people - Peck agrees with Scott’s framing that government’s role is to set the conditions so that doing the right thing and doing the profitable thing are the same thing — rather than assuming corporations will self-regulate - Peck credits thousands of one-on-one voter conversations over three and a half years as the source of this evolution 00:54:41 What’s different this time vs. 2024? - Peck says Houchin beat him by 20+ points in 2024, but frames it as Donald Trump and straight-ticket voting beating him — Houchin’s own name recognition was still only in the 30s–40% range in internal polling - Peck points to unprecedented Democratic engagement: Jeffersonville drew 2,000 to its last No Kings rally, Corydon drew 700 in a town of 3,000, and similar energy is showing up in Madison, Seymour, and Bloomington - Peck says soft Trump voters who stayed with him in 2024 — not the core MAGA 30-35% — have begun turning in the last six weeks, with gas prices serving as the final straw for people already stretched by childcare, housing, and healthcare costs - Peck says the structural difference is the operation: 3.5 years of relationship-building has produced experienced staff, a large individual donor list, 3,000 postcards sent from the lower district to Bloomington voters, and canvassing in four cities simultaneously on the day of this town hall 01:02:07 How can people get involved? - Peck directs viewers to www.timpeckforcongress.com and the “Join the Movement” tab, where they can sign up to write postcards, knock doors, or find a fellowship - Door knocking for the primary has ended, but phone banking continues through Election Day Tuesday; Peck says if someone really wants to knock, the campaign will give them literature for their own neighborhood - Peck gives his personal cell number on air: 812-287-9079, crediting former Congressman Lee Hamilton for the advice to put your real number on your card - Peck pledges that win or lose on Tuesday, he will continue fighting — if he loses, he will join whatever Democratic movement is growing, because flipping the House is the goal 01:03:24 Closing Remarks - Scott thanks Peck, wishes him luck Tuesday, and urges all viewers to vote regardless of candidate preference Thanks again to Dr. Peck for joining us. For more information and to get involved, visit his campaign website at https://timpeckforcongress.com [https://timpeckforcongress.com]. You can also find him on Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/timpeckforcongress] and across most social media sites at timpeckforcongress. Tune in Tuesday night for PIN’s Primary Election Night Special, beginning at 7pm ET | 6pm CT. Progressive Indiana Network is subscriber-supported independent media. To help us continue doing this work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Progressive Indiana Network at www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe [https://www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Virtual Town Hall IV w/ Brad Meyer

progressiveindiana.net [http://progressiveindiana.net/] bradmeyer.org [http://bradmeyer.org/] SUMMARY: In his fourth virtual town hall with Progressive Indiana Network, 9th District Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Meyer covers a wide range of policy ground with host Scott Aaron Rogers ahead of the May 5th primary. Meyer opens with an unscripted personal statement about why he got off the sideline and into the race, framing his progressive candidacy as a rejection of the Democratic Party’s rightward drift. The conversation spans climate and energy policy, the dual-edged threat of AI and data centers, US-China relations and the prospect of war, gun violence, drug policy, mass incarceration, neurodiversity and disability education funding, executive power and the Iran war, and the political disillusionment of ordinary voters. Throughout, Meyer draws on his 35-year background as an engineering manager to ground his policy positions in practical terms, while Scott pushes him on structural questions about wealth concentration, federal job guarantees, and the courage required to go on offense rather than play permanent defense. Progressive Indiana Network is subscriber-supported independent media. To help us continue doing this work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. IN DEPTH: 00:00:00 Opening Remarks - Scott opens the stream, notes technical difficulties with ProgressiveIndiana.net, and invites Brad Meyer to begin while Scott troubleshoots - Meyer speaks off the cuff, describing how he and his wife were heading into a quiet retirement before Project 2025 and the Democratic Party’s drift rightward pulled him into the race - Meyer argues Democrats must stand on their values and bring voters to their side rather than softening positions to blend in with the opposition 00:03:29 Environmental Policy, the Green New Deal, and Net Zero - Scott notes it is “criminal” that they have not yet discussed the environment in this series and asks Meyer about his policy positions, including the Green New Deal and a carbon tax - Meyer frames the issue in two parts: global warming, where he calls out climate denial as the same playbook used by the tobacco industry, and ecology, where he cites Indiana’s severely polluted waterways and the need for point source pollution controls - Meyer says he still has more listening to do before committing to a definitive climate platform, but expressed interest in carbon swap mechanisms as an economic tool 00:06:43 Nuclear Energy and Small Modular Reactors - Scott presses Meyer on how to achieve net zero by 2035 and raises nuclear — particularly small modular reactors being developed in Indiana partly to power AI data centers — as a potential clean energy option - Meyer says he cannot support nuclear today as an engineer, citing the recurring pattern of unforeseen combinations of failures in past plants and the impossibility of trusting regulatory oversight under the current science-denying administration - Meyer draws a distinction between next-generation reactor technology and the regulatory and scientific environment required to deploy it responsibly 00:09:43 Viewer Question from @2Tows (YouTube): AI and Data Centers - @2Tows asks how Meyer approaches the looming threat of AI and data centers on the working class - Meyer breaks the question in two: on AI, he says the transformation will be faster and more disruptive than the PC revolution, hitting white-collar workers who have never faced this kind of displacement before — comparable to what automation and deindustrialization did to blue-collar manufacturing - On data centers, Meyer argues the core problem is companies using NDAs to lock out local communities from decisions that directly affect them, calling the practice unethical and a red flag about corporate intentions as a community partner 00:14:03 Distributing AI’s Economic Value - Scott asks how we ensure AI’s productivity gains are distributed more equitably rather than captured entirely by a handful of tech overlords - Meyer confirms the hype is real — describing a personal engineering project he completed in two weeks with AI that he estimated would have taken 52 weeks alone — and says the question is not if but how - Meyer advocates for a $20 federal minimum wage and higher taxation on corporations and high-net-worth individuals, while expressing a preference for policies that break up monopolies and enable small business formation over direct wealth transfers 00:19:00 Federal Jobs Guarantee and the Care Economy - Scott pushes back: if AI eliminates jobs wholesale, what do the idle masses do, and does the federal government need to step in with a jobs guarantee or something like a climate corps? - Meyer prioritizes breaking up monopolies, restoring the Small Business Administration, banning anti-competitive non-compete agreements, and implementing Medicare for All to free workers from job-lock - Meyer says done right, the AI boom produces more small business owners; done wrong, it produces the economic conditions of the 1880s 00:22:23 US-China Relations and Foreign Policy - Scott notes it is equally “criminal” that a federal candidate has not been asked about foreign policy, and raises the US-China relationship: Cold War redux or something else? - Meyer says the better analogy is pre-World War II, citing publicly available congressional testimony about China’s plans to take Taiwan in 2027 and Trump’s requested 40% military budget increase as alarming signals - Meyer argues America First is really America Alone, and that the diplomatic failures surrounding the Iran war — including leaving European allies out of the picture — have left the US dangerously isolated at the moment it most needs partners 00:26:55 Scott Pushes Back: American Imperialism and the China Threat - Scott challenges the framing as an anti-war lefty, noting the US has spent 80 years “swinging its thing” around the globe — Iran, Cuba, Greenland, Central America, Iraq, Vietnam — and questions the moral authority to cast China as the threat - Meyer acknowledges the critique but argues the relative peace of the post-WWII era, underwritten by US power and trade alliances, has been genuine — and that China’s rise to preeminence, particularly a Taiwan seizure, would trigger a regional realignment with severe economic consequences for the US - The two agree to disagree philosophically and Meyer reframes the goal as preserving a stable world economy where all nations can grow without the US having to suffer 00:32:24 Gun Violence Policy - Scott pivots to gun violence, noting weapons of war are proliferating on American streets and schools, and asks what Meyer’s policy is and whether it involves banning anything - Meyer calls for common-sense measures with broad support — disarming people on terrorist watch lists, and those in mental health crisis or threatening others through court-reviewed red flag processes — while acknowledging the political sensitivity in southern Indiana and his need to be explicitly on the record - Meyer highlights the Dickey Amendment-style research prohibitions Congress has imposed and calls for lifting them, arguing the population cannot be moved faster than it is willing to go but that time in the district and sustained persuasion can shift that 00:37:28 Viewer Question from Patrick (Facebook): Schumer or Ro Khanna? - Patrick on Facebook asks whether Meyer aligns more with Chuck Schumer or Ro Khanna for the direction of the Democratic Party - Meyer says he is a progressive, plans to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and is not a Schumer fan — Scott informs him Khanna is a fellow Progressive Caucus member - Meyer’s response: “Groovy.” 00:38:35 Drug Policy: Marijuana Legalization and Beyond - Scott uses the gun prohibition discussion as a bridge to drug prohibition, noting Meyer has been outspoken for marijuana legalization, and asks how far he would go — psilocybin, ibogaine, the Portugal decriminalization model? - Meyer supports full recreational marijuana legalization with controls mirroring alcohol — taxed, regulated, no impaired driving — but says his enthusiasm for going further is “really low,” supporting only tightly restricted medical research into psychedelics with no path toward normalization - Meyer says he always believed medicinal marijuana was a foot in the door toward legalization, which he now supports outright, but draws the line there 00:42:05 Mass Incarceration - Scott argues the war on drugs has failed and produced a mass incarceration crisis, and asks how Meyer would address it - Meyer identifies three root causes he wants to attack: mental illness, addiction, and poverty — noting that the US has been almost entirely punitive rather than curative, and that the people most likely to be locked up are also the poorest - Meyer flags the high recidivism rate as evidence that longer sentences are counterproductive, severing inmates from the community ties that reduce reoffending 00:47:04 Private Prisons - Scott cuts to the chase: private prison corporations profit from incarceration — would Meyer ban them? - Meyer says he is inclined to ban private prisons as a government function, but hedges by saying if a private prison demonstrably lowered recidivism, that would be worth considering - Meyer’s core argument: remove the profit motive from the entire prison system, public or private, and tie advancement to outcomes after release 00:48:29 Neurodiversity, Disability, and the IDEA Act - Scott notes that many people in the carceral system are undiagnosed and untreated neurodiverse individuals who fell through the cracks, and asks how Meyer would address the autism and neurodiversity community specifically - Meyer says he has held roundtable discussions with disability experts and advocates to inform his thinking rather than imposing his own precepts, and centers his answer on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — which the federal government committed to fund at 40% but has never exceeded 14%, and which the current administration is actively gutting - Meyer argues every dollar invested in early education for people with disabilities returns four to six dollars, and that society is already paying the cost through incarceration, homelessness, and lost productivity 00:52:09 Viewer Question from Katy (Facebook): Limits on Presidential Executive Orders - Katy on Facebook asks whether Meyer has plans to impose limits on presidential executive orders - Meyer says the limits already exist on paper — the real problem is Congress abdicating its oversight responsibility, and the specific abuse Meyer highlights is the use of emergency powers, citing Trump’s conduct around the Iran war as an example requiring impeachment rather than new legislation - Meyer says he wants the social norms built over 250 years enforced, not new laws written, and that a president who violates those norms needs to be removed — legally 00:54:00 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner Incident - Scott asks Meyer’s reaction to whatever happened the previous night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner - Meyer says there is no place for violence in American politics — regardless of how strongly he opposes Trump — and that the answer is the ballot box, starting with May 5th 00:54:48 Viewer Question from @2Tows (YouTube): How to Help the Campaign - Scott returns to a question he had been holding from @2Tows, who is a newly converted Meyer supporter, asking what they and others can do to help in the final days - Meyer says: vote, and tell your friends one-on-one — peer-to-peer persuasion is more powerful than door-knocking and will matter even more in the general - Meyer says person-to-person contact is what will make the difference 00:56:09 Message to Disillusioned Voters - Scott asks what Meyer says to voters who are over it — fed up with both parties - Meyer validates the disillusionment completely, saying voters are not looking at it wrong, and argues that the party’s strategy of moving right and sounding more Republican has never produced real solutions - Meyer uses the gerrymandering fight as a case study in defensive politics: Democrats stopped Indiana from making an already-horrible gerrymander worse and called it their biggest victory — while nothing got done on streams, childcare, coal, the grid, or education; he says it is time to go on offense 01:00:06 Brad’s Closing Remarks - Meyer directs viewers to bradmeyer.org and the Brad Meyer for Indiana Facebook page to contact, volunteer, or donate - Meyer closes with a direct ask: vote May 5th, tell your friends, and remember that more timid policies will not get us where we need to go Thanks again to Brad Meyer for joining us. For more information and to get involved, visit his campaign website at https://www.bradmeyer.org [https://www.bradmeyer.org]. You can also find him on Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/bradmeyerforindiana] and across approximately eight social media platforms linked from the campaign site. The last in our virtual town hall this primary season is Sunday, May 3 at 7pm ET with another 9th District Democrat, Dr. Tim Peck. Progressive Indiana Network is subscriber-supported independent media. To help us continue doing this work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Progressive Indiana Network at www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe [https://www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Indiana's 9th Congressional District Democratic Primary Debate

Produced by: Progressive Indiana Network: https:/www.progressiveindiana.net [https:/www.progressiveindiana.net] Moderator: Kacey Blundell: https://hoosierwomenforward.org/kacey-blundell/ [https://hoosierwomenforward.org/kacey-blundell/] Candidates: Brad Meyer: https://bradmeyer.org/ [https://bradmeyer.org/] Tim Peck: https://timpeckforcongress.com/ [https://timpeckforcongress.com/] Keil Roark: https://www.keilroark.com/ [https://www.keilroark.com/] Jim Graham was invited but unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. SUMMARY: Progressive Indiana Network hosted the final primary debate of the 2026 cycle for Indiana’s 9th Congressional District, moderated by Kacey Blundell. Three candidates participated: Dr. Tim Peck, an emergency medicine physician from New Washington; Brad Meyer, a former manufacturing leader from Bloomington; and Keil Roark, a licensed electrical engineer, Navy veteran, and former UAW assembly line worker. A fourth candidate, Jim Graham, was invited but declined citing a scheduling conflict. The debate covered 11 questions across a broad range of policy areas -- including the cost of living, healthcare, education, infrastructure, immigration, data centers, and government accountability -- followed by a 15-question lightning round exposing intra-party fault lines, and closing statements from each candidate. Peck ran on a platform of rejecting corporate PAC money, reducing healthcare costs by eliminating middlemen and directing Medicare dollars to patient care, and labor-first infrastructure policy. Meyer advocated for a $20 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and a structural progressive overhaul of the economy. Roark positioned himself as the pragmatic, electable candidate, focused on ACA subsidies, a $15 minimum wage, and appealing to disaffected Republicans. Progressive Indiana Network is powered entirely by our subscribers. To help us continue presenting special events like this, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. BREAKDOWN: 00:00:23 Welcome and Introductions - Blundell introduces the debate and PIN, explains the format, and welcomes the three candidates. - A fourth candidate, Jim Graham, was invited but could not attend due to a scheduling conflict. - Opening statement order determined by random draw: Peck first, then Meyer, then Roark. 00:03:21 Opening Statements - Peck introduces himself as an emergency medicine physician who co-led a bipartisan coalition to expand telemedicine ahead of the pandemic, frames the central problem as “it costs too much to work,” and pledges to accept no corporate PAC money. - Meyer highlights 25 years in manufacturing leadership, calls for a $20 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and the first $20,000 in earnings tax-free, and argues Democrats lose by softening their message. - Roark introduces himself as a Purdue-educated electrical engineer, Navy officer, and former UAW assembly line worker, calls for a $15 minimum wage and ACA subsidy restoration as pragmatic near-term priorities, and frames himself as the electable candidate in a conservative district. 00:09:43 Q1: What is your top priority for residents of Indiana’s 9th Congressional District, and how do you plan to achieve that? Keil Roark - Prioritizes reinstating ACA subsidies, passing a minimum wage increase, and repealing the “big, beautiful bill” to restore SNAP and Medicaid funding. - Also called for a No Stock Trade Act to prohibit members of Congress from trading on insider information, and Supreme Court ethics reform. Brad Meyer - Top priorities: stabilize the ACA and rural health care system, and enforce the Impoundment Act to compel the executive branch to spend congressionally allocated funds. - Called for impeachment proceedings against Trump for the Iran war and for gutting federal programs in violation of law. Tim Peck - Focused on the “costs too much to work” problem he hears at the doors: gas, housing, childcare, groceries, education debt, and health insurance all consume more than a paycheck provides. - Proposed restoring war powers, first-time homebuyer assistance to compete with private equity, universal pre-K, grocery price gouging investigations, lower student loan interest rates, and reversing the big, beautiful bill’s ACA cuts. 00:15:56 Q2: How would you address rising costs of living, including housing, groceries, and health care for families in this district? Brad Meyer - Proposed $20/hour minimum wage, raising the non-exempt salary threshold to $100,000 for overtime purposes, and making the first $20,000 earned tax-free. - Advocated for Medicare for All to reduce medical debt bankruptcies, ending corporate speculation in single-family housing, building more housing supply, and helping first-time buyers with down payments. - Also called for stabilizing Social Security. Tim Peck - Identified corporate PAC money as the root cause -- arguing that business interests now control government, citing the current congresswoman’s Duke Energy record as a specific example. - Proposed leveling the tax code between corporations and individuals: credit card interest rates, PE firm housing tax rates, and ACA premium taxation all favor corporations over working people. Keil Roark - Framed housing as primarily a supply problem stemming from the post-2008 construction slowdown, calling for tax incentives for development, low-interest loans for first-time buyers, and anti-monopoly cost controls on predatory developers. - Tied grocery prices to fertilizer costs elevated by war, and argued ACA subsidy restoration would cut average monthly health care costs by roughly 25%. 00:21:59 Q3: What is your stance on public safety and criminal justice reform, and what specific policies would you support? Tim Peck - Supports funding police while also addressing the root causes that produce crime. Described a real incident from the night before -- a middle schooler waving a gun outside a high school dance in Salem -- as emblematic of the problem. - Called for background checks, safe storage requirements, red flag laws, school-based mental health and conflict resolution, and access restrictions for those who should not have firearms. Brad Meyer - Framed the issue as reactive (policing and courts) versus proactive (addressing poverty and lack of hope). - Criticized the country’s failures on mental health, addiction policy, and recidivism -- noting that roughly half of those released from prison reoffend. - Called for body cameras and federal oversight to rebuild community trust, and argued the federal government’s retreat from consent decrees has made things worse. Keil Roark - Emphasized the direct link between unemployment and crime: good-paying jobs reduce recidivism. - Called for upgraded police recruiting, training, and federal grants to struggling departments; eliminating cash bond for nonviolent offenders; and better in-prison vocational training to reduce reoffending. 00:28:19 Q4: How do you plan to support small businesses and economic growth in the suburban and rural parts of the district? Tim Peck - Argued that rural infrastructure is the prerequisite: broadband, transportation links, local hospitals, and schools must exist before small businesses can survive. - Described his own community’s situation -- local hospital closed, fiber internet only recently arrived, limited transport to urban centers -- as the lived reality of rural economic hollowing. Keil Roark - Drew on his own blue-collar background in construction to argue for protecting small business tax deductions for equipment, materials, and operating costs. - Called for working with local mayors and county leaders to identify specific infrastructure and economic development needs, then targeting tax incentives accordingly. Brad Meyer - Outlined four steps: reduce barriers to starting businesses (limit non-competes, pass Medicare for All to decouple health insurance from employment); strengthen the local economy through minimum wage and overtime policy; expand capital through the Small Business Administration; and invest in broadband, infrastructure, and workforce development. - Noted that Kentucky receives roughly twice Indiana’s federal funding, and called that a failure of congressional representation. 00:34:39 Q5: What steps would you take to improve access to affordable health care for Hoosiers, given Indiana’s rankings near the bottom nationally for maternal mortality, mental health access, public health funding, and hospital costs? Brad Meyer - Short-term: reinstate ACA subsidies, expand telehealth and preventive care, increase rural provider reimbursement rates, and support mobile EMS units. - Long-term: advocated for Medicare for All, arguing the for-profit system is unsustainable -- Americans die earlier and go bankrupt more than in comparable countries. - Offered a personal story about using Planned Parenthood when he and his wife were young and low-income, and expressed strong support for restoring it. Keil Roark - Called for reinstating ACA subsidies and updating ACA language to include tax incentives for demonstrated preventive care activities -- citing Japan’s system as a model for how preventive care reduces downstream costs. - Supported repealing the big, beautiful bill, whose Medicaid and SNAP cuts are putting severe pressure on district hospitals. Tim Peck - Described the EMS crisis in his own community: no local hospital, local fire department does not run EMS on weekends, and the next closest ambulance may be unavailable or transporting someone to Kentucky. - Argued that without universal insurance coverage, rural hospitals cannot stay open -- and without hospitals, EMS collapses with them. - Called for eliminating prior authorization, banning pharmacy benefit managers, and ensuring Medicare tax dollars go directly to patient care rather than executive bonuses and shareholder payouts. 00:41:50 Q6: How should the federal government support education and what changes would you advocate for schools in the district, given Indiana’s rankings of 37th in K-12 funding, 37% grade-level reading rate, and 39th in teacher pay? Keil Roark - Called for funding teacher assistants, after-school programs, and dramatically higher teacher pay, arguing that without better compensation, districts cannot attract STEM professionals. - Drew on his experience as an Ivy Tech instructor and Navy recruiter -- noting he saw many enlistment candidates fail the ASVAB because of weak math skills -- as evidence of the STEM gap. Tim Peck - Argued that Mike Braun and the state Republican majority will not raise teacher pay, so the federal government must act through its leverage over funding. - Proposed tying federal education dollars to living-wage requirements for teachers and prohibiting those funds from flowing into private school voucher programs. - Supported universal pre-K as a bipartisan investment with a measurable return, noting a Republican-authored bill already exists on the subject. Brad Meyer - Called for restoring and protecting the Department of Education, which channels roughly $3 billion in Title I funds to Indiana’s struggling schools. - Supported universal pre-K and a national child care program, and called for better congressional coordination of over a dozen federal adult education and retraining programs. - Argued that state leaders bear primary responsibility and are failing, and that federal pressure must be applied. 00:48:17 Follow-Up: Should the federal Department of Education be kept or returned to the states? Keil Roark - Supports keeping the Department. Argued that federal funding leverage is real -- Indiana will listen when dollars are at stake -- and that the Department provides essential national oversight of graduation rates, credentialing, and curriculum standards that states cannot self-police. Tim Peck - Supports keeping a well-funded, centralized Department. Argued that federal dollars give Congress the power to require states to fund public education rather than divert money into voucher programs, which Indiana has done and plans to expand. Brad Meyer - Supports keeping the Department, emphasizing its role as an independent evaluator of school performance -- one the administration wants to eliminate specifically to hide what privatization is doing to student outcomes. - Called the proposed elimination a “shell game”: Trump will increase military spending and defund education, then send responsibility to states that will let it collapse, causing the $3 billion Indiana has historically received to simply vanish. 00:54:21 Q7: What is your position on infrastructure spending -- roads, broadband, and public transportation -- for the 9th District? Tim Peck - Argued that federal infrastructure money should be conditioned on worker protections and fair wages -- the PRO Act does exactly that and has bipartisan support, but Speaker Johnson will not put it on the floor. - Described the broadband rollout in his rural community as a cautionary tale: subcontractors using questionable labor are breaking things that union workers then have to fix, spending the money twice. Keil Roark - Called for local mayors and county councils to serve as the clearinghouse for infrastructure priorities -- they know which roads, bridges, and fiber connections are needed and where. - Supported federal funding for roads, bridges, broadband, and school improvements as long as it is tied to genuine community needs and balanced between maintenance and new development. Brad Meyer - Noted over 1,000 deficient bridges and another 1,000 in disrepair in Indiana; an aging electric grid unable to keep pace with growth; and neglected water treatment infrastructure. - Argued the federal government’s core role is to fund the big, expensive, long-term things local communities cannot handle alone, and that Congress must work with regional and state officials to target that money effectively. 01:00:26 Q8: How would you approach border security and immigration policy? Keil Roark - Opposed defunding ICE but called it broken -- citing the firing of Noem as evidence -- and called for stronger recruiting standards, body cameras, and accountability. - Supports strict border security and wants to reinstitute a strengthened E-Verify to hold employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers. Tim Peck - Argued Congress has shamefully abdicated its power by failing to push back on Trump’s legally invalid “invasion” rationale for blocking asylum cases, which a federal judge has since rejected. - Supports stronger borders through more judges, more officers, and better drug detection equipment -- along with a faster, fairer asylum adjudication process, rather than releasing claimants into the country for years while their cases wait. Brad Meyer - Led an anti-ICE protest at Camp Atterbury in August and supports rolling back current ICE expansion -- but acknowledged that doing so only returns policy to 2024, which was also inadequate. - Reframed immigration as an economic issue: the U.S. labor participation rate has declined for 40 years and the country needs more workers; immigration policy should be redesigned to bring workers in legally, with dignity, in a controlled and values-consistent way. 01:06:18 Q9: As the district’s congressman, what actions would you take to address environmental concerns raised by data center development while balancing economic growth? Brad Meyer - Opposed irresponsible data center implementation; called for establishing clear national standards for responsible siting, requiring transparent permitting (without NDAs or gag orders on communities), engaging the EPA, and ensuring the grid can handle additional load. - Called community gag orders potentially illegal and argued local residents must have more power in the process. Tim Peck - Argued data center companies, unlike casinos, make private deals with governments before communities can weigh in, then consume water and drive up electricity prices with no community benefit. - Called for transparency and accountability before construction, noting that casinos historically deliver community infrastructure as part of their deals and data centers do not. Keil Roark - Called for clear value propositions: communities must know the tax revenue, lease terms, maintenance agreements, and ownership structure before ground is broken. - Supported using the EPA and Department of Energy to clamp down on reckless development, and praised local moratoriums already in place in some counties as a model. 01:12:34 Q10: How will you ensure transparency and accountability in your role if elected to Congress? Keil Roark - Called for aggressive use of committee hearings and subpoena power to force administration officials to testify under oath, arguing that contempt of Congress and pleading the Fifth are themselves accountability tools that create political pressure. - Said he would seek assignments on the Veterans Committee or STEM Committee. Brad Meyer - Described a long list of current administration abuses: replacing inspectors general, using unconfirmed acting agency heads, resisting subpoenas, weakening White House visitor log transparency, relaxing ethics waivers, and undermining the FEC. - Called for structural reforms including a healthcare amendment, balanced budget amendment, and election finance reform. - Acknowledged that Congress itself has done “a suck-egg job” of oversight and said he would not take corporate PAC money once campaign finance reform is passed legislatively -- but declined to unilaterally disarm during the current cycle, arguing the campaign will need $3 million or more. Tim Peck - Pledged no corporate PAC money and called out his opponents for not making the same pledge. - Said he has already signed the Take Back Accountability in Congress pledge along with 70 other Democratic challengers -- committing to no corporate PACs, a five-year lobbying moratorium after leaving office, a four-term limit, and no individual stock trading. - Called for restoring checks and balances on the Supreme Court and reclaiming war powers and the power of the purse from the executive. 01:20:33 Speed Round - Federal moratorium on new data center construction: Meyer no, Peck no, Roark no - Expand the Supreme Court beyond nine justices: Roark no, Peck no, Meyer no - Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico: Peck yes, Meyer yes to Puerto Rico, Roark yes (both) - Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College: Meyer yes, Roark no, Peck yes - Federal legalization of recreational cannabis: Meyer yes, Roark no (too many unknowns), Peck yes - FISA reauthorization as currently written: Roark no, Meyer no, Peck no - Withhold military aid to Israel: Peck yes, Roark no in certain circumstances, Meyer partially - Impeach President Trump: Meyer yes (for the Iran war), Roark yes (for Impoundment Act violations), Peck yes (depending on the article) - Free public higher education: Roark no (expanded: merit-based in high-demand fields with payback requirement), Peck pathway to get there (expanded: removing barriers is a national security and workforce imperative), Meyer yes for the first year (expanded: real education costs have risen 10x since 1970 -- this was intentional and must be fixed) - Cancel all outstanding student debt: Peck no (not all of it), Meyer yes, Roark no (merit-based forgiveness for teachers and doctors who serve required years) - Federally funded child care: Meyer yes (funding mechanism still unresolved), Roark yes with a cost cap, Peck tax incentives for small businesses - Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker: Peck no, Roark no, Meyer no - Federal assault weapons ban: Meyer yes, Peck yes, Roark not necessarily (depends on the weapon) - Abolish the federal death penalty: Meyer no (struggles with it), Roark no (capital punishment necessary in some cases), Peck yes - Federal minimum wage by 2030: Roark $22-23/hour, Peck low 20s, Meyer $20 now then adjust as needed 01:30:09 Closing Statements - Roark closes by arguing he is the only candidate who can win over disenfranchised Republicans in a deeply red district, citing Peck’s 55,000-vote loss last cycle as evidence that progressive candidates struggle in the general, and framing his economy-and-jobs message as the path to November. - Meyer pushes back directly on Roark’s “safe bet” framing, arguing that every major progressive victory in American history -- Social Security, Medicare, civil rights -- came from courage rather than caution, and closes: “the meek may inherit the earth, but they’re never going to take back the House.” - Peck argues something has changed in the district -- 700-person rallies in towns of 3,000, Republicans at the doors saying it costs too much to work -- and that the moment calls for a candidate who has built the organizing infrastructure to win, not just the right positions. 01:37:01 Moderator’s Closing Remarks - Blundell thanks the candidates and PIN, notes early voting is underway, and closes by calling the primary winner’s general election race one of the most consequential midterm elections in modern American history. Progressive Indiana Network is powered entirely by our subscribers. To help us continue presenting special events like this, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Progressive Indiana Network at www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe [https://www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Indiana's 6th Congressional District Democratic Primary Debate

Produced by: Progressive Indiana Network: https:/www.progressiveindiana.net [https:/www.progressiveindiana.net] Moderator: Scott Aaron Rogers: https://www.hoosleft.us [https://www.hoosleft.us] Candidates: William Kory Amyx: https://amyxforcongress.com/ [https://amyxforcongress.com/] Nick Baker: https://electnickbaker.com/ [https://electnickbaker.com/] Cinde Wirth: https://wirth4congress.com/ [https://wirth4congress.com/] David Boyd was invited and and confirmed but pulled out of this debate citing to a scheduling conflict. SUMMARY: Progressive Indiana Network hosted a Democratic primary debate for Indiana’s 6th Congressional District, featuring moderator Scott Aaron Rogers and candidates William Kory Amyx, Nick Baker, and Dr. Cinde Wirth. A fourth candidate, David Boyd, was invited and confirmed but withdrew citing a scheduling conflict. The debate covered ten questions on foreign policy, technology accountability, immigration, affordability, healthcare, education, human rights, taxation, social security, and labor, followed by a fifteen-question speed round and closing statements. The candidates showed clear ideological distinctions throughout, particularly on healthcare — with Amyx and Wirth supporting universal single-payer and Baker advocating a public option — and on immigration, where Amyx and Wirth called for abolishing ICE and Baker opposed that position. The speed round revealed unanimous agreement on several issues including data center moratoriums, DC and Puerto Rico statehood, abolishing the Electoral College, cannabis legalization, FISA reauthorization, impeaching Trump, and opposing Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker, while the candidates split on an assault weapons ban, student debt cancellation, free higher education, and abolishing the federal death penalty. Progressive Indiana Network is powered entirely by our subscribers. To help us continue presenting special events like this, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. BREAKDOWN: 00:00:22 Opening and introductions - Scott Aaron Rogers opens the debate on behalf of Progressive Indiana Network, introducing the 6th Congressional District race. - Candidates introduced: William Kory Amyx, Nick Baker, and Dr. Cinde Wirth; David Boyd was invited and confirmed but withdrew at the last minute citing a scheduling conflict. - Format outlined: two-minute opening statements, ten questions with 90-second responses, a fifteen-question speed round, and closing statements. 00:02:49 Opening statements - Amyx leads, citing 23,000 doors knocked across 11 counties and a focus on affordability, healthcare, education, public safety, and economic dignity. - Baker follows (order swapped due to technical difficulties with Wirth), highlighting his Camp Lejeune Supreme Court case [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-1878/20-1878-2021-11-30.html], a push for a balanced budget through healthcare reform, and an argument that he is the most electable candidate in a conservative district. - Wirth closes, introducing herself as a seventh-generation 6th District resident, public school teacher, small business owner, and PhD scientist, and citing her 2022 run against Greg Pence as proof of her commitment to the district. 00:08:10 Q1: Separation of powers and the war with Iran - Rogers frames the question around the Iran war, sweeping tariff authority, and the revival of impoundment powers, asking what each candidate would do to reassert congressional authority and what their position is on the war. - Baker calls the war illegal and unconstitutional, argues for winning back the House majority to challenge executive overreach through legislation. - Amyx proposes replacing the War Powers Resolution with a modern version requiring affirmative congressional authorization within 30 days, automatic funding cutoffs for unauthorized hostilities, congressional approval windows for tariffs, and reform of the National Emergencies Act. - Wirth argues Congress members who took an oath to defend the Constitution have a duty to hold domestic enemies accountable, and calls for restoring the State Department’s professional diplomatic corps to end the Iran conflict. 00:15:12 Q2: Tech accountability and Section 230 - Rogers uses the discovery of a network of online chat groups called “Rape Academy” with an estimated 62 million members as the entry point for a question on platform liability and Section 230 [https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230] reform. - Amyx calls for full repeal of Section 230 and introduces two pieces of draft legislation: the Real Identity Integrity Act (tokenized logins to verify identity while preserving anonymity) and the Digital Integrity and Algorithmic Accountability Act (algorithmic transparency requirements). - Wirth draws on her classroom experience with cyberbullying, calls for guardrails on big tech, and argues the root problem is money blocking legislation that has been proposed repeatedly over 15 years. - Baker calls Silicon Valley the “Wild West,” applauds a New Mexico verdict against Meta for hosting child predators, references Indiana’s Haley’s Law, and cautions against regulation that tips into censorship. 00:21:32 Q3: Immigration and ICE - Rogers frames the question around the removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE shootings of U.S. citizens, and a Democratic base that increasingly supports abolishing ICE. - Wirth states she called for abolishing ICE last summer and co-organized an anti-ICE rally at Johnson County Park in Atterbury; she supports retaining professional Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry while eliminating ICE entirely. - Baker opposes full abolishment, arguing ICE can be returned to how it functioned under Clinton and Obama — deporting people lawfully without the abuses of the current administration; warns that “abolish ICE” messaging will cost votes in a conservative district. - Amyx introduces his Unity Pathway Act: provisional legal status for undocumented individuals, a pathway to a green card after five years, and replacement of ICE with a new Immigration Enforcement Service refocused on trafficking networks, cartel operations, and violent criminals rather than families and workers. 00:28:20 Q4: Affordability - Rogers presses all three on the affordability crisis, noting that “we’ll lower costs” is a talking point, not a policy, and asking for root causes and specific solutions. - Amyx cites real wage data (3.3% price increases vs. 0.3% real hourly earnings growth in March), and outlines a structural approach: raise wages with small business offsets, universal healthcare to cut costs, expand housing supply, and treat child care as an economic investment. - Baker points to insurance as the largest inflationary metric — with profits up fourfold while premiums rose 10-21% — and argues for reforming healthcare overhead, returning tax revenue to communities, and raising the minimum wage. - Wirth argues Medicare for All would give every family an effective lift of approximately $24,000 through 2-3% administrative overhead, calls for CEO pay accountability, enforcement of antitrust laws, and investment in 50 million affordable housing units. 00:34:30 Q5: Healthcare - Rogers uses a direct Baker quote from a Hancock County forum — “I would love the dream of universal healthcare to come true, but I don’t think right now it’s a workable solution” — to open a deeper discussion on how each candidate would get to their preferred healthcare system. - Baker clarifies he does not support propping up the ACA, which he calls broken, and instead supports a public option he describes as “Medicare for More” — leaving a capitalistic private market open while eliminating administrative waste; he says universal healthcare would require a two-thirds congressional majority. - Wirth cites polling showing over 70% of Americans support single-payer in some form, advocates a phased-in approach funded through payroll taxes and a wealth tax on investment gains, and proposes job transition programs for insurance industry workers displaced by the change. - Amyx agrees with Wirth that preventative care is critical, supports universal healthcare but opposes a sudden transition that could “crush” rural hospitals, and calls for phased implementation with Medicare negotiating drug prices, capped out-of-pocket costs, and strengthened rural care. 00:41:19 Q6: Education - Rogers frames the question around Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education, Title I cuts, student debt, and the teacher exodus from the profession. - Amyx, who has worked in higher education for 22 years as a financial aid officer and veterans advisor, calls for increased Title I [https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/what-is-the-title-i-education-program-five-things-to-know-about-the-largest-k-12-federal-education-program-for-schools/] and IDEA [https://www.parentcenterhub.org/idea/] funding, ending the voucher program, paying teachers at the same level as ICE agents (over $100,000), expanding career and technical education, and making all students independent at 18 for FAFSA purposes. - Baker predicts the Department of Education may need to be “resurrected” by January, supports increased federal funding, and proposes using litigation to challenge religious institutions that accept vouchers while discriminating — arguing that’s a case winnable even in the current Supreme Court. - Wirth, whose PhD is in cultural and educational policy, calls vouchers a tool for segregation dating to the post-Brown v. Board era, calls for overturning Espinoza v. Montana, restoring teacher loan eligibility, protecting IDEA, and ending the use of public tax dollars in private schools that can expel students at will. 00:47:54 Q7: LGBTQ rights and the Newsom debate - Rogers frames the question around Gavin Newsom’s call for Democrats to be more “culturally normal [https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/23/politics/video/inside-politics-gavin-newsom-two],” the backlash from LGBTQ advocates, and where candidates draw the line between political pragmatism and abandoning vulnerable constituents. - Wirth, an anthropologist, flatly rejects Newsom’s framing — “there is no cultural normalcy” — calls trans rights human rights, and recounts changing attendance rosters by hand to protect trans students before it was widely discussed, as far back as 2010. - Baker says he supports liberty and government staying out of people’s personal lives, but expresses personal reservations about gender-affirming care for minors and trans athletes in certain sports settings, framing it as a political liability in the district. - Amyx, who is gay and the only LGBTQ candidate in the race, calls human rights non-negotiable, says he knows firsthand what it means to hide who you are, and states he will never back down on trans rights or compromise on anyone’s humanity. 00:54:06 Q8: Taxation and the wealth tax - Rogers uses Newsom’s opposition to a wealth tax — framing it as making room for billionaires in the Democratic tent — against the Warren/Sanders barnstorming tour arguing the opposite, and asks where each candidate stands on taxing the wealthy and reorienting the tax code. - Baker calls for a complete overhaul of the tax code, more progressive brackets at $1M, $10M, $100M, and $1B income thresholds, and closing loopholes — while also proposing cutting corporate taxes to incentivize reinvestment over executive pay extraction. - Amyx proposes eliminating the federal income tax entirely for individuals earning under $75,000 (and couples under $150,000), offset by a targeted 1% wealth tax on the ultra-wealthy with tens of millions in accumulated assets. - Wirth supports a 2-3% tax on billionaire investment gains to fund childcare infrastructure and other programs, and calls for corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share rather than spending on tax avoidance. 01:00:23 Q9: Social Security solvency - Rogers frames the Social Security shortfall — projected insolvency by 2032 with an automatic 28% benefit cut — and contrasts Republican privatization proposals with the progressive solution of lifting the payroll tax cap above $184,500. - Wirth supports raising the cap to approximately $425,000, opposes privatization entirely, and calls for laws protecting the Social Security fund from being used as a “piggy bank.” - Amyx acknowledges lifting the cap helps but notes economists say even a full cap elimination only closes 70-80% of the 75-year shortfall; says he favors eliminating the cap entirely but admits the full solution requires additional mechanisms he hasn’t fully resolved. - Baker supports raising the Social Security tax threshold to $400,000-$500,000, argues the deeper problem is the national debt (grown from $13T to $39T since 2010), and references the Simpson-Bowles [https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-was-actually-in-bowles-simpson-and-how-can-we-compare-it-with-other-plans] framework — two-thirds cuts, one-third revenue — as a model for long-term solvency. 01:06:39 Q10: Labor and the union drift to Republicans - Rogers asks candidates to diagnose why blue-collar private-sector union members have been drifting Republican for decades, and what they would do in Congress to win back not just union leadership endorsements but rank-and-file votes. - Baker attributes part of the drift to right-to-work laws and pivots to data centers — arguing no candidate can win this district supporting them, citing Decatur Township specifically, and noting that construction jobs last a year or two while the centers then employ fewer people than a Cracker Barrel. - Wirth, who identifies as the only active labor union member (AFT/AFL-CIO) running for Congress in Indiana, supports the PRO Act and repeal of right-to-work, argues labor unions are being used as pawns in data center promotion, and attributes the trade union drift to sexism — noting trade unions are male-dominated while the professions drifting Democratic are female-dominated. - Amyx says the cost of living is overriding party loyalty, Democrats haven’t been listening (citing his 23,000 doors across both parties), and that Republicans have mastered “respect for workers” messaging even when their policies don’t match; identifies cultural disconnect, institutional distrust, immigration anxiety, and “identity-first” Democratic messaging as contributing factors. 01:13:38 Speed round - Federal moratorium on new data center construction: Amyx yes, Baker yes, Wirth yes - Expand the Supreme Court beyond nine justices: Wirth yes, Baker no, Amyx yes - Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico: Baker yes, Amyx yes, Wirth yes - Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College: Amyx yes, Wirth yes, Baker yes - Federal legalization of recreational cannabis: Amyx yes, Baker yes, Wirth yes - FISA reauthorization: Wirth no, Amyx no, Baker no - Withhold military aid to Israel: Baker no, Wirth yes, Amyx yes - Impeach President Trump: Amyx yes, Wirth yes, Baker yes - Free public higher education: Wirth yes, Baker no, Amyx yes - Cancel all outstanding student debt: Baker no, Amyx yes, Wirth yes - Universal federally funded child care: Amyx yes, Wirth yes, Baker yes - Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker: Baker no, Wirth no, Amyx no - Federal assault weapons ban: Amyx yes, Baker no, Wirth yes - Abolish the federal death penalty: Amyx no, Wirth yes, Baker no - Federal minimum wage by 2030: Wirth declined to give a number (living wage tied to local cost of living), Baker $15, Amyx $23 (toward a $25/hr target by 2031) 01:19:18 Closing statements - Amyx closes on listening before leading — 24,000 doors, real solutions built with constituents, a contrast with “standard politicians.” - Baker closes on electability — asking voters whether they want the most progressive candidate or the most electable progressive, and arguing his campaign gives Democrats the best shot at flipping the seat, which last went Democratic in 1939 under Finly Gray [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finly_Hutchinson_Gray]. - Wirth closes by invoking her 2022 run against Greg Pence when no one else would, her work across all 11 counties, and a vision of single-payer healthcare, living wages, affordable childcare, fully funded public schools, and being “the first Democratic woman to represent” the 6th District. ### Rogers closes the event, thanks the candidates and PIN notes early voting is underway with primary day May 5th, and calls the winner’s general election race one of the most consequential midterm elections in modern American history Progressive Indiana Network is powered entirely by our subscribers. To help us continue presenting special events like this, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Progressive Indiana Network at www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe [https://www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Virtual Town Hall w/ John Whetstone for Congress (D-IN4)

https://progressiveindiana.net/ [https://progressiveindiana.nethttps://progressiveindiana.net/] https://www.whetstoneforcongress.com/ [https://www.whetstoneforcongress.com/] SUMMARY John Whetstone, Democratic candidate for Indiana’s 4th Congressional District, joined HoosLeft host Scott Aaron Rogers for a virtual town hall on April 19, 2026. A small business owner from Crawfordsville, Whetstone grounded his progressive platform — Medicare for All, a $17.25 minimum wage, abolishing ICE, Supreme Court expansion, and federal cannabis legalization — in a personal story of growing up poor in a trailer park and watching his father work himself to death under the weight of medical debt. The conversation ranged across healthcare, education, housing, gun policy, democratic reform, data centers, and the question of how to peel off Trump voters with a working-class populist message that targets billionaires instead of immigrants. Progressive Indiana Network is subscriber-supported independent media. To help us continue doing special events like this, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. QUESTIONS 00:00:22 Introduction 00:01:08 John Whetstone introduction and opening remarks 00:05:42 Q: Healthcare transition — rural hospitals are closing now. What does the path from our current system to Medicare for All actually look like? - Government must use direct funding to keep rural hospitals and labor-and-delivery departments open during the transition period. - The transition requires throwing federal dollars at the gap while the private insurance model is being unwound. - Whetstone acknowledged he does not yet have a specific timeline for the full transition. 00:07:13 Q (Bonnie, Crawfordsville): What will you do to improve funding for Indiana schools? - Incentivize systems to stop diverting students to private and charter schools. - Restore and expand practical vocational programs — fire/EMS, law enforcement training, automotive — that have been defunded. - Fund education from pre-K through college; student debt should not exist because an educated workforce benefits the whole country. - AI-driven layoffs have left a generation of coding graduates underwater on loans they were told would pay off quickly. - Daycare must be treated as part of the education infrastructure — parents leaving the workforce to care for children is a policy failure. 00:11:34 Q: Would you have supported the Build Back Better plan’s investment in childcare as human infrastructure? - Yes — investing in people is the core message of his campaign. - Revenue is available through closing tax loopholes, raising the corporate tax rate, and taxing the wealthy. - The economy can afford to put people back at the center of policy. 00:13:29 Q: In last week’s IN-04 debate, you said you opposed a federal assault weapons ban. Why? - Gun culture is central to where he grew up; the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and should not be eroded before other options are exhausted. - Prefers investing in mental health, drug intervention, and community economic improvement — raising the minimum wage should lower crime rates. - Supports registration, licensing, and mandatory safety training, but insists all of it must be free, like voting — no effective poll tax on a constitutional right. - The insurance mandate idea is where he draws the line; cost should not be a barrier to exercising a right. 00:17:40 Q: Can ICE be reformed, or does it need to be abolished? - Abolish ICE — they have proven untrustworthy and operate like a gang at $85 billion and counting. - Replace with caseworkers who help people navigate the pathway to citizenship or residency. - The killing of Alex Pretti — a licensed gun owner shot in the back by ICE agents — illustrates exactly why the agency cannot be reformed. - The agency’s own arrest data shows only a small minority of those detained have any criminal record. 00:19:23 Q: You were the loudest yes on Supreme Court expansion in last week’s debate. To what number, and how do you answer the “race to the bottom” objection? - Expand to 13 justices (revised upward from his initial answer of 12 after Scott pointed out you need an odd number for majority rulings). - Structure it as six conservative, six liberal, plus one mutually agreed-upon neutral party. - Pair expansion with term limits and a rotating schedule so every president gets at least one pick and no justice accumulates unchecked power indefinitely. - 13 corresponds to the number of federal circuit courts — the same logic that originally produced nine. 00:24:17 Q: Do you support statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico? - Yes to both, and Guam as well — all U.S. territories should become full states. - America should not be an imperial power with permanent territorial subjects who have no voting representation. - Every territory should have some form of voting representation in Congress. 00:25:19 Q: Do you support abolishing the Electoral College? - Yes — presidents should not be able to win without winning the popular vote. - Also supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as an interim workaround; Virginia just joined that week. 00:27:20 Q (Bonnie, Crawfordsville): What are your proposals on housing affordability and homelessness? - Raise the minimum wage and cap rent increases — out-of-state corporate landlords are buying up Crawfordsville properties and hiking rents without making improvements. - Medicare for All would free up household income currently drained by health costs. - We have more vacant homes than unhoused people; retrofit vacant big-box storefronts like old Sears locations into government-funded housing. - Supportive of public housing in concept but was candid that he needs to research the policy specifics before making firm commitments. 00:31:42 Q (Tabitha, Covington): What will you do for the autism, neurodiverse, and disability community? - No specific policy plan yet; honest about that gap. - Broad investment in the social work profession — more social workers, higher wages, more funding for social work schools. - DCS and case management agencies are dangerously understaffed. - ABA therapy and similar autism interventions would be covered under his Medicare for All plan because if a doctor says it’s health care, it’s health care. 00:33:41 Q: Would abortion be covered under your universal healthcare plan? - Yes, unequivocally — abortion is healthcare, it’s between a patient and their doctor, and it’s a human right. - The Hyde Amendment would have no place in his system. 00:35:13 Q: Social Security is projected to go insolvent around 2032 with automatic benefit cuts of roughly 28%. What’s your plan? - Remove the payroll tax cap — Elon Musk pays Social Security taxes only on his first $180,000 while working people pay on every dollar they earn. - Lifting the cap alone would dramatically extend Social Security’s solvency; Whetstone declined to put a specific year on it. - Cautious about whether surplus revenue could also be used to increase benefits — said he hasn’t fully researched that angle yet. 00:37:46 Q: What do you understand about this political moment that your older colleagues in Congress do not? - Personal data is being bought, sold, and weaponized — his campaign uses purchased voter data to target ads, and most legislators don’t even know that’s possible. - He purchased his own data before the campaign began and found the results alarming. - Regulation of who can buy personal data and for what purposes is urgently needed, and younger members are best positioned to explain why to colleagues who barely know how to use a computer. 00:40:28 Q (Aaron, YouTube): Which political figures, living or dead, inspire you? - Among current members: Thomas Massie — for his willingness to break with his party on principle (specifically on Epstein file transparency); Whetstone said he’d work with any Republican on minimum wage or universal healthcare. - On the Democratic side: AOC — “She’s our next president.” - Historically: his father, a union Democrat who drove a 14-year-old Whetstone to Tea Party meetings to heckle the speakers; and Bernie Sanders. 00:43:10 Q: It’s the eve of 4/20 — is it time to legalize cannabis federally? - Yes — it’s a revenue source, it’s a public safety improvement over an unregulated market, and it’s comparable in risk to alcohol. - Legalize, tax, regulate, decriminalize, reduce prison populations, restore lives. - Acknowledged he usually avoids the topic because people assume it’s the only reason young candidates run. 00:45:16 Q: Indiana agriculture depends on migrant labor, yet your district’s voters largely back Trump’s immigration crackdown. How do you talk to farmers about this? - Farmers don’t bring up migrant labor — they bring up the cost of fertilizer and lost export markets, particularly the loss of Chinese demand for American crops and the rising cost of sulfuric acid due to trade war disruptions. - Proposed a government purchasing program to buy surplus agricultural output and direct it to free school meals and unhoused shelters, creating a domestic market floor. - Farmers know agriculture depends on migrant labor; they avoid the subject because it’s uncomfortable. 00:47:26 Q (Colton, ProgressiveIndiana.net): What are your thoughts on data centers? - Call for an immediate moratorium — supports Bernie Sanders’s nationwide pause on new data center construction. - Indiana is ground zero; community opposition near Lebanon and Monrovia has been nearly unanimous, yet politicians keep ramming approvals through. - We have more vacant homes than homeless people, yet we’re demolishing livable structures behind barbed wire to build data centers. - Government should have heavy oversight of any future construction — protecting water tables, requiring sustainable energy and closed-loop cooling, and regulating AI companies’ data-scraping practices. - Skeptical of the China national security argument; believes good-neighbor diplomacy reduces confrontation more reliably than an AI arms race. 00:52:48 Q: If Democrats take the House and Senate but Trump is still there with a veto, what can actually get done? - Believes Trump would sign minimum wage increases and rural transit and internet investment because those benefit his base and feed his legacy. - Medicare for All would not pass Trump’s desk. - Would support impeachment if given the votes — he was clear Trump has committed impeachable offenses — but framed it as a separate track from legislating. 00:54:58 Q: Trump ran as a right-wing populist. You’re running as a progressive populist. Same anger, different targets. How do you convert his voters? - He grew up next to Trump voters in a trailer park; those conversations are the template for his campaign. - Canvassing apartment complexes and trailer parks — places where the top-down economic squeeze is viscerally real — has produced broad support across socialist, Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian voters. - Trump voters know they’re getting screwed; they just got conned into blaming the wrong people. Whetstone’s pitch is that he comes from the same place they do. 00:57:25 Q: What’s the most important thing a congressperson can do that has nothing to do with legislation? - Be genuinely embedded in their community — not just holding town halls, but keeping their barber, their doctor, and their daily life rooted where their constituents live. 00:58:05 Closing remarks and campaign information Thanks again to John Whetstone for joining us. For more information, visit his campaign website at https://www.whetstoneforcongress.com/ [https://www.whetstoneforcongress.com/] Progressive Indiana Network depends on your subscription to keep producing special events like this one. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to support our work. Get full access to Progressive Indiana Network at www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe [https://www.progressiveindiana.net/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]