Indiana taxpayers shouldn't subsidize $168M in data center corporate welfare
If the Indiana Economic Development Corp. gets its way, the state will have four new energy-and-water-hogging data centers in high-population areas — all funded by you, the taxpayer.
The IEDC recently approved $168 million in tax incentives to attract four data centers. Hoosiers will be subsidizing these monstrosities for up to 50 years.
Government leaders claim they will create jobs — a total of 180. For those keeping count at home, that's more than $930,000 in taxpayer money per job being "created."
Hicks: Braun's smart IEDC picks must now tackle Indiana's development spending mess
Indiana has become a haven for data centers because, in 2019, the state government allowed them a 35-year tax exemption to entice them to plop down in Hoosier cornfields.
As Libertarians, we believe in private property rights. You can do what you want with your justly acquired property, as long as you pay for it and you own the property.
However, the line is drawn when governments get involved. Governments should not take land from others, nor should it hand out bags of tax money and incentives to give one business a leg up over any other competing uses for a property.
Nearly all of these data center projects are in high-growth, high-demand suburban areas, where there would be multiple viable uses for the land. Without incentives, the market prevails — and the data centers likely find less populated areas to locate.
We also believe in transparency. These four projects are using code names because they're operating in secrecy to prevent the public from knowing which companies they're throwing your money toward.
One of the projects, in Hancock County (or Project Redline), is being proposed by Surge Development LLC. Its principal, Chris King, just happens to be an IEDC board member. This approval doubles down on a data center plan Surge recently withdrew due to intense public opposition.
The Republican-led state government claims to be pro-business. It needs to embrace the free market instead.
Free markets don't have governments picking winners and losers, nor making deals in secret. Free markets don't use taxpayer incentives to favor one business over another. They don't have governments spending billions to buy land and then turn it over to other private companies, as happened in the controversial LEAP project in Boone County. They don't privatize profits and leave the losses on the backs of the taxpayer.
Opinion: Indiana's 201% cigarette tax hike will fuel smuggling, not just revenue
For every new state-funded project by the IEDC, taxpayers get the shaft. They have to pay for the road, water and power lines, while the businesses themselves are getting a break from paying sales and property taxes, especially as local governments pile on with tax abatements of their own.
That means residents and small businesses who have been in the community for years get to shoulder more of the burden of paying for roads, schools and public safety.
If Indiana truly wants to be pro-business, it needs to embrace the free market. No tax abatements, no exemptions, no handouts, no special favors that the common citizen or small business doesn't have access to. Instead, focus on keeping taxes low and having a common-sense regulatory environment.
Indiana should abolish the IEDC, as well as local economic development corporations. A business can thrive on its own. It doesn't have to mooch off the taxpayers to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Visits $450 Million 'Alligator Alcatraz,' Suggests Taxpayers Should Fund More of Them
Only eight days after construction began, and 12 days after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier released a video on X announcing plans for an immigration detention center in the Everglades, "Alligator Alcatraz" will officially open this week. The site, which was visited by President Donald Trump and Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday, puts Florida at the forefront of the federal government's mass deportation campaign. The state-run immigration detention facility is planned to eventually hold up to 5,000 detainees and will be capable of processing and deporting migrants to speed up deportations amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The 30-square-mile parcel of land was chosen in part for its unused airstrip—and for its alligator- and python-laden surroundings serving as cheap security and deterrence. "They ain't going anywhere once they are there…because good luck getting to civilization," DeSantis said during a news conference on Monday. "The security is amazing. Natural and otherwise." During the tour of the facility, DeSantis added that Florida should not be the only state but should serve as a model. "We need other states to step up," he said. Trump called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom specifically, saying the Democratic governor could "learn something" about curbing illegal immigration. DeSantis pointed out that California is home to the original Alcatraz, implying that it, too, could be outfitted as an immigration detention center. Although both the president and DeSantis were quick to say Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem would be able to find funding for additional immigration detention centers, the cost and source of funding for these facilities merit further scrutiny, particularly since ultimately taxpayers are footing the bill. While touted as an "efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility" in Uthmeier's original video about the facility, Florida's new facility is expected to cost $450 million to operate for a single year. A DHS official told CNN that Florida will fund the operation of the facility and then "submit reimbursement requests" through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and DHS. Secretary Noem said that Alligator Alcatraz and other approved detention facilities in the state will be funded "in large part" by $625 million set aside by the FEMA Shelter and Services Program. The project has faced objections from local residents and government officials, including Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who opposed using county-owned land for the project. After Levine Cava requested an environmental impact report and updated land appraisal, DeSantis seized the land under emergency powers in place since 2023. The post Trump Visits $450 Million 'Alligator Alcatraz,' Suggests Taxpayers Should Fund More of Them appeared first on
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP leaders scrambling to rally holdouts behind Trump megabill
GOP leaders are scrambling to unite their conference behind the massive Senate bill that would enact President Trump's domestic agenda and get it to the president's desk before the holiday weekend. They have their work cut out for them. Not only are moderate Republicans balking at cuts to Medicaid, which were made larger by the Senate, but conservatives are also up in arms over the massive increase in deficit spending, also increased by the upper chamber. The combination is raising questions about whether GOP leaders can rally enough support to pass the bill, given a slim House majority that allows for only a small handful of defections. 'If you look at the totality of this, I don't believe this delivers what the president, what the administration, were working to deliver on,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a vocal member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which is fighting to rein in deficit spending. 'I know why they're going to lobby for it, I know why the president's going to push for it. They want to see it get done, and I get it,' he continued. 'But I think we have more work to do.' The resistance poses a huge challenge for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other GOP leaders, who are racing to bring the holdouts on board for the sake of enacting the core of Trump's second-term agenda, including sweeping tax cuts, a crackdown on immigration, a shift away from green energy and huge cuts in federal health and nutrition programs. Some of those House GOP critics — moderates and conservatives alike — had warned in no uncertain terms that they were ready to oppose the bill if it were made 'worse' by the Senate. Now they face the dilemma of either abandoning that position, to give Trump a win, or standing by it to vote 'no' — even if it means sinking the bill. Centrists and hard-liners are now weighing those two forces, and some were quick to acknowledge the pickle they're in. 'Maybe I'll get lucky and have a rough enough landing or something that I'm unable to make [it] to D.C. for a few weeks,' one moderate House Republican told The Hill, underscoring the corner they find themselves in. Hanging over their decision is the president himself, who is pressing hard on Republicans of all stripes to back the legislation — and might encourage primary challenges against recalcitrant lawmakers who oppose the 'big, beautiful bill.' That scenario is not just a hypothetical. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — who voted against the House version of the legislation in May and is expected to oppose the Senate bill this week — has been the target of a MAGA-backed super PAC fighting to get someone more loyal to Trump into his seat. Across the Capitol, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) also faced the president's wrath after announcing he would oppose the package. A day later, Tillis announced that he will retire at the end of this term. Democrats aren't making it any easier. While they're powerless to block the legislation, they're highlighting the most controversial provisions of the package, which include steep cuts to low-income health and nutrition programs — money Republicans are using to help pay for their tax cuts. Democrats are already honing their attacks on battleground Republicans who might support the bill. 'Republicans claim to be the party of working-class Americans — you are not. You are hurting working-class Americans. This bill won't make life more affordable for the American people. It will make life more expensive,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Tuesday in the Capitol. 'Why would any so-called traditional Republican, particularly those who are in swing seats all across America, vote for a bill that will aggressively and actively hurt their constituents?' Adding to the pressure, Johnson and GOP leadership are trying to pass the bill by their self-imposed July 4 deadline, which is Friday, a timeline that will require a herculean effort to meet. In a statement right after the Senate vote, the top four House GOP leaders said they would finish their work 'in time for Independence Day.' But later in the day, when talking to reporters in the hallway, Johnson was less sure. 'We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours,' he said. While coy on the timeline, he was clear that he was not thrilled with the Senate's changes — but he suggested the House would not make changes of their own, which would require another vote in the Senate. 'I'm not happy with what the Senate did to our product, but we understand this is the process, it goes back and forth, and we'll be working to get all of our members to 'yes,'' the Speaker said. 'So high stakes, aggressive schedule, and we knew it would come to this moment.' Some lawmakers are skeptical they can get it done in time. 'The changes the Senate made to the House passed Beautiful Bill, including unacceptable increases to the national debt and the deficit, are going to make passage in the House difficult,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), a Freedom Caucus member, wrote on the social platform X. 'I am willing to work through the 4th to make sure this bill is better for America's children tomorrow by spending less today.' The sprint, nonetheless, is already underway. The House Rules Committee convened for a meeting about the bill Tuesday afternoon, marking the first step in the consideration process in the lower chamber. Once the panel adopts a procedural rule, House GOP leaders want to convene the chamber at 9 a.m. Wednesday to begin debating the rule, then hold a vote to adopt the procedural rule, followed by a vote on the underlying legislation. But the first step is already on thin ice. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the Freedom Caucus, said Tuesday on Fox News that he will vote against the procedural rule on Wednesday, warning that it will be stopped in its tracks — a reality that would bring legislative business to a halt. Republicans can only lose three of their own and still advance the rule, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. Two of those defectors are already claimed with Harris and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). 'That's exactly why a group of us are not going to vote to advance the bill until we iron out some of the deficit problems with the bills,' Harris said when asked about Elon Musk's criticism of the bill. 'Look, Mr. Musk is right, we cannot sustain these deficits; he understands finances, he understands debts and deficits, and we have to make further progress. And I believe the Freedom Caucus will take the lead in making that further progress.' Trump weighed in on Tuesday afternoon, praising the Senate for passing his agenda and urging House Republicans to follow suit. 'I thought the Senate was going to be tougher than the House. We got there. We got pretty much what we wanted,' Trump said. 'It's the biggest bill ever passed if we get this done.' A senior White House official was even more direct, all but demanding that the House pass the bill in its current form in time to grant Trump a symbolic signing on Independence Day. The official dismissed the idea that the House could make changes to the Senate bill and then have the chambers 'conference' the two versions into one. 'The end of the road is here. The bill is finished. The bill needs to be sent to the president's desk and it needs to be done … on or before July 4,' the official said. 'I don't think we view conference as a productive enterprise.' The White House is whipping hard ahead of the vote, the official added, with a number of top officials working the phones, including Trump; his budget director, Russell Vought; and the heads of the Energy and Treasury departments. Alex Gangitano contributed reporting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
