Um Trumps Finanzmittel zu bekämpfen, probieren die Staaten ein neues Gambit aus: Zurückhaltung der Bundeszahlungen

Civil war, here we come

What payment do states make to the federal government that these bills plan on withholding?

It’s about time we stop enabling the red state’s toxic trailer trash boyfriend. 

He’s not even pretending to be a president for all of us. The tap should have been turned off long ago. 

If this leads to mindless violence against the blue states, so be it. We can defend ourselves. It’s better than throwing innocent lives away to feed a senile narcissist and his idiot neo-Nazi fanclub. 

There’s an idea. The GOP is supposed to be about states‘ rights. Let’s see how quickly they change their tune and expose themselves for their hypocrisy.

More of this please.

In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question.

The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session.

“It’s a novel concept,” said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. “I don’t think states have ever been in this position before … where there’s someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.”

Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted.

For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding.

More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there’s vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around.

“So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn’t likely to change very much,” said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law.

Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts.

“There’s also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,” he said. “The federal government could say, ‘You didn’t make this payment, therefore you’re out of this program completely.’”

But that doesn’t mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn’t try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power.

“Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it’s going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, ‘Hey, we know what you’re doing and we don’t like it,’” he said. “States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.”

But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump.

“We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,” said Moon, the Maryland legislator. “There’s certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.”

Finally. Damn. We need to hit them where it hurts and that’s in the treasury, there is no reason the 4th largest economy in the world should be contributing to marines being deployed in its own streets. The parts of the world that drive this country want no part of this, and we need to be heard. Let the red states rot in their ignorant hubris or join, finally, civilized society in the modern age.

>In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress.

That’s just not enough money to have any kind of impact. The vast majority of federal taxes come from individuals, not the state.

The union is dead. Civil War 2 everyone. There’s no united states anymore. Every state will have it’s own laws and rules and I agree why should my successful state fund your failed state because of the other people’s incompetence. It’s about time we stop funding the federal government that only objective is war and lining politicians pockets.

No taxation without representation.

Surprised PA hasn’t done this yet. Josh is an excellent governor who seems to actually give a shit.

Good. People in the red states should know who butters their bread.

“In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress.”

So the supreme court says it legal and the states back down