Another victory for states' rights this week - Ohio wins

[gbg3]

This one almost slipped by unnoticed but this is a big deal. Several states have sued over the federal government trying to place restrictions on the lowering of state taxes. This is the first ruling I've heard of from these various cases. This Ohio win is good news. This, along with the SCOTUS upholding the AZ voting laws - is good news, this week, for the rights of states to not be overrun by the feds.

Federal judge slaps down Biden’s move to limit states’ tax cuts

A federal judge ruled that a provision in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief law limiting states from cutting taxes is unconstitutional.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[KingLeo]

Not exactly what the proposal was about.
The infrastructure plan was to NOT allow states to use federal aid money to offset the states own poor decision in regards to ill advised tax cuts which have put state budgets in distress.
The ruling basically said it is OK for the states to use the federal government as a bailout mechanism.

 

[Lisa]

This one almost slipped by unnoticed but this is a big deal. Several states have sued over the federal government trying to place restrictions on the lowering of state taxes. This is the first ruling I've heard of from these various cases. This Ohio win is good news. This, along with the SCOTUS upholding the AZ voting laws - is good news, this week, for the rights of states to not be overrun by the feds.

Federal judge slaps down Biden’s move to limit states’ tax cuts

A federal judge ruled that a provision in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief law limiting states from cutting taxes is unconstitutional.

www.washingtontimes.com

The question that DeWine hasn't answered is who will pay for these policies because you can not simulatiously lower taxes and expand policies.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Not exactly what the proposal was about.
The infrastructure plan was to NOT allow states to use federal aid money to offset the states own poor decision in regards to ill advised tax cuts which have put state budgets in distress.
The ruling basically said it is OK for the states to use the federal government as a bailout mechanism.

Net takers gonna be allowed to continue to be takers. Not much surprise there. Guess they can cut state taxes to 0 and allow the citizens of states that realize you have to have money coming in to pay for shit to make up the difference.

Brilliant.

 

[Mr Person]

lol, as if Trumpists care about "state's rights". Just another example of what I have been saying in threads alternately praising as Beacons of the One Truth or throwing nefarious conspiracy theories at SCOTUS for, depending on lean.

 

[Lisa]

Net takers gonna be allowed to continue to be takers. Not much surprise there. Guess they can cut state taxes to 0 and allow the citizens of states that realize you have to have money coming in to pay for shit to make up the difference.

Brilliant.

I love when Republicans do this nonsense and then they have the audacity to claim that Democrats are tax and spenders who don't want to get the debt or deficit under control. Supply-side economics doesn't work because you believe it does or Fox News feeds to this propaganda line.

 

[mrjurrs]

This one almost slipped by unnoticed but this is a big deal. Several states have sued over the federal government trying to place restrictions on the lowering of state taxes. This is the first ruling I've heard of from these various cases. This Ohio win is good news. This, along with the SCOTUS upholding the AZ voting laws - is good news, this week, for the rights of states to not be overrun by the feds.

Federal judge slaps down Biden’s move to limit states’ tax cuts

A federal judge ruled that a provision in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief law limiting states from cutting taxes is unconstitutional.

www.washingtontimes.com

You do understand that the first American government had the states in a position of power over the federal government. It failed.

 

[gbg3]

Not exactly what the proposal was about.
The infrastructure plan was to NOT allow states to use federal aid money to offset the states own poor decision in regards to ill advised tax cuts which have put state budgets in distress.
The ruling basically said it is OK for the states to use the federal government as a bailout mechanism.

The issue was the feds wanted to use the topic of Covid and the associated federal aid to control states, even what states may have already planned in terms of their state tax structure. The feds wanted to try to force the citizens of all states to feel "the same" about the supposed need for that federal aid, when not all citizens and states did or should have felt the same way. They didn't want states which had successfully managed their budgets (even through the pandemic) to look better than the states which hadn't prior to and during Covid. But, that last round of aid was very controversial and many conservatives thought it went too far or, even, wasn't warranted at all. Some red state leaders felt the same way. So, suddenly the feds were tying the hands of the states by trying to prevent state plans and agendas because it would make some of the mismanaged blue states look bad in comparison. This key word in this quote from the OP article is "indirectly". In essence, the feds could stop the states from lowering states taxes under the vague and broad description of "indirectly", thus calling any lowering of state taxes an "indirect" result of Covid aid. That was a dishonest tactic and a bridge too far. This is an important ruling.

"Mr. Yost had filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, saying that the provision in the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” barring states from using the federal aid to offset tax cuts “directly or indirectly” is unconstitutional."

 

[Craig234]

rights of states to not be overrun by the feds.

So you condemn the ruling limiting the state's right to require disclosure of dark money donors. Oh, state's rights only when they fit your agenda. So stop using the phrase - or be called dishonest.

 

[KingLeo]

The issue was the feds wanted to use the topic of Covid and the associated federal aid to control states, even what states may have already planned in terms of their state tax structure. The feds wanted to try to force the citizens of all states to feel "the same" about the supposed need for that federal aid, when not all citizens and states did or should have felt the same way. They didn't want states which had successfully managed their budgets (even through the pandemic) to look better than the states which hadn't prior to and during Covid. But, that last round of aid was very controversial and many conservatives thought it went too far or, even, wasn't warranted at all. Some red state leaders felt the same way. So, suddenly the feds were tying the hands of the states by trying to prevent state plans and agendas because it would make some of the mismanaged blue states look bad in comparison. This key word in this quote from the OP article is "indirectly". In essence, the feds could stop the states from lowering states taxes under the vague and broad description of "indirectly", thus calling any lowering of state taxes an "indirect" result of Covid aid. That was a dishonest tactic and a bridge too far. This is an important ruling.

"Mr. Yost had filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, saying that the provision in the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” barring states from using the federal aid to offset tax cuts “directly or indirectly” is unconstitutional."

My point is still valid.
The states are using the federal government to offset their own poor tax decisions.

 

[Lisa]

My point is still valid.
The states are using the federal government to offset their own poor tax decisions.

This republican shell game started under Kasich who drastically cut the state income and property taxes and then raised taxes and fees on the middle class and working poor, and depended on the federal government to make up for the shortfall that they created all then while proclaiming that they were balancing the budget. Kasich also used up all of the rainy day funds that ted Strickland created.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Not exactly what the proposal was about.
The infrastructure plan was to NOT allow states to use federal aid money to offset the states own poor decision in regards to ill advised tax cuts which have put state budgets in distress.
The ruling basically said it is OK for the states to use the federal government as a bailout mechanism.

That federal aid is taxpayer money at at some level is returned to the states. In reality the ruling basically means that the White House and Congress cannot blackmail the states away from tax cuts by withholding federal money. As for bail outs, you are just projecting.

 

[KingLeo]

That federal aid is taxpayer money at at some level is returned to the states. In reality the ruling basically means that the White House and Congress cannot blackmail the states away from tax cuts by withholding federal money. As for bail outs, you are just projecting.

Interesting that in general red states are far more federal tax users than what they contribute.
The ruling only continues the red state practice of having everyone else pay for their mistakes.