The novel and untested approach has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in at least four states.
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.
The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure.
These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections.
I feel like you’re missing a point here. It’s significant that this isn’t just
It’s that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren’t adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.
I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don’t think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.
You’re getting to a level of technicalities and semantics that simply would not matter in the long run. The specific details and reasoning behind it is and would remain completely irrelevant. In the end, it would be a matter of California withholding federal payments because it does not agree with federal policies being enforced upon them. What those policies are and why is completely irrelevant.
No they wouldn’t, and it would be a disaster if they tried.
Again, what the policies are and why are irrelevant. It would be viewed by every other state as a license to withhold federal funds if you disagree with federal policy. Texas, for example, would be able to decide that they are going to withhold federal payments because they don’t like the restrictions on the 2nd amendment that the federal government is imposing upon them. If Dobbs were to be overturned, for example, Florida could say “the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state to fund pro-life initiatives, and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.”
See how easy that is. If you can make the argument, so can they.
It would lead to no administration being able to apply nationwide policies without risking losing billions in federal payouts from states that disagree with those policies. It would make it impossible for the federal government to create and implement a budget as they’d have no idea how much they’d be able to collect, especially if a couple of large states were really upset over some recently passed legislation. States like Texas and California would have an outsized influence on federal policy because they could threaten to withhold federal dollars without negatively impacting their own economy, while smaller states like Maryland, Vermont, and Idaho would have no such leverage and in fact be forced to take whatever the federal government gives them and like it or risk losing federal funding and sending the state into bankruptcy.
Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You’re implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that’s really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money–hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things–based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from “we are accustomed to receiving funds for this”; instead it’s “you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill.” In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn’t that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money “because they disagree with federal policies,” and saying “what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant,” but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.
I just don’t think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you’re portraying it as. I’m getting into technicalities because we’re discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you’re dealing with the law. There’s a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as “rules lawyering”.
And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy…isn’t that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.
In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it’s all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I’ll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I’ll probably drop it at this point.
No, it would be blue states (not just California) setting aside in escrow money owed to the federal government, while pursuing a legal suit for the federal government to follow through on its commitments. This is a legit approach for an individual with a complaint against a business like a landlord, so it seems like you could pursue similar logic
The US government isn’t going to say “Drat, foiled again!” just because you used some clever semantics. Whether it’s in an escrow account or the normal state-controlled bank account is irrelevant. The end result would be the same. The government will order the account seized, the courts will very likely comply, and the government will get the money with the state being able to do fuck all to stop them.
How cute that you think the two are in any way comparable. State-level issues like this are on a completely different level than a dispute between you and your landlord.