Let’s assume, for example, that the Federal government decides to end Medicaid and all educational programs.
Currently, the way that both Medicaid and these programs are funded is that the IRS taxes various entities (individuals, businesses, etc.) and then gives that money back to the states to partially fund their local Medicaid-compatible and Department of Education-compatible programs. At the point where this funding guarantee ends, either a lot of nurses, doctors, and teachers are all suddenly out of a job (hitting the states with non-negligible rates of unemployment) OR the states must quickly act to continue these programs and fund them, themselves, as a mechanism to stop the collapse and panic.
I would argue that, if the Federal government has chosen to suddenly withhold the promised funding for these programs - which are still on the books as statutory obligations - then taxes collected from the denizens and businesses of the impacted states that would have provided the Federal revenue to cover those programs, should be impounded by the states and used to fund the programs.
States should pass legislation such that, in the case of Federal failure to meet statutory obligations or sudden removal of large programs, they can temporarily channel and directly deduct from Federal taxes, prior to passing it to the IRS for a period of 1-2 years while drafting legislation to replace those programs.
What would the mechanism for this be? It’s not as if states are responsible for collecting income tax and passing it on to Washington - individuals pay the IRS directly. The state would have to somehow insert itself into the payment process or find some way of seizing control of federal accounts.
If the feds were expecting that money from me… they can screw me over 10 ways to Sunday if I don’t pay, regardless of what my State Government decided to do.
Again, how? You’re just saying “they’ll do it by passing a law to do it”. I go to work, I earn a wage, my employer deducts from it and sends it to the IRS per the instructions on my W4, and if I still owe them at the end of the year I write them a check. Where is there room for the state to stick its fingers in?
There’s no gotcha here. Yes, right now, people directly send their money to the feds. A law to channel the money through the state government would require that these entities send the money to the state, for forwarding to the feds.
That’s just what was written, written just more plain.
Yes, the courts can force the States to refrain from impounding federal assets. The charge could be obstruction of federal law by state officials. States gave Congress the power to raise taxes in the Constitution, there is no clawback provision. The federal government and state governments are two different categories; what holds for one does not necessarily hold for the other.
First, let’s take a step back out of hypotheticals to reality.
In reality, passing a law that gives you privileges in some plausible, future scenario doesn’t do diddley squat. It just sends a message out into the world. If Nevada passes the “Don’t Foist Your Debts on Us Act”, tomorrow, that doesn’t actually do anything since none of of the joint State/Federal programs have actually been cancelled.
If the act is clearly written to be narrowly tailored to preventing a crisis and nothing more, describing itself as an emergency offramp for unexpected and uncoordinated exit by one of the parties in the shared program, and could be avoided purely by having Congress pass an act that gives 1-2 year delay before the programs are ended, and which reduce the tax burden on Americans to match the savings, then Congress has an out - to avoid all chaos and conflict.
We (ideally) never get to the stage where there are court decisions flying around, Feds arresting state officials, state officials arresting Feds, and so on.
But, on the day that it does come to that, if I’ve got 10 guys and you’ve got 1 guy, you’re not going to win the enforcement game. The states have more power within their own territory.
No, I disagree. One state does not get to obstruct federal law, fullstop. Doesn’t matter how clear or narrow the law is written, a state is not legally allowed to impound federal tax revenues. Maybe you have a moral argument there but I think the federal courts have no discretion.
In terms of the minimization of harm, preventing catastrophic funding crises that would lead to the loss of millions of jobs across the country is significant. Preventing the Federal government from being able to change from one form of running at a deficit to a different and more extreme form of running at a deficit, has no negative impact to anyone.
Minimizing harm goes straight to the states.
Now if the funding is cut without any matching legislation then, when it comes to the question of law, to be sure there’s the argument that the states aren’t meant to be involved in the collection of Federal taxes. But:
By law, the states are owed that money and, with the courts accepting the truth of that, the courts would simply proceed to order that the Feds pay up. The state law is simply one perfectly reasonable, narrowly tailored mechanism that the court could use to enforce their own decision.
There’s no textualist reading of the Consitution, clearly denying the right of the states to collect taxes on behalf of the Federal government. The specifics of the collection mechanism are, in fact, completely unaddressed.
Now, if Congress does legislate the end of these programs then the above becomes more tenuous but the attempt to enforce the state law would generate the legal challenge, which then brings up the need to minimize harm. The court would then be able to issue an injunction, delaying the law’s enactment for some time while the states create a replacement system.
Who said one state? The title of the thread is, “The States”.
Getting to do or not do things depends on functional reality, not magical word spells.
Each state can make a law of whatever form they want. The Federal government can oppose or negotiate with the states, and let that play out how they want.
Everything past that is just people saying things.
The Congress gets to collect income tax. Not the states. This isn’t an issue of unenumerated powers, because the Constitution specifically empowers the federal government. The state doesn’t get to insert itself as middleman any more than it can declare that I have to pay my rent to them instead of to my landlord.
I don’t understand. How are the States passing laws if not individually? The Constitution prohibits inter-state compacts without consent of Congress. But if Congress consents to such a compact, that makes the whole topic moot.
I stand by my original comment - it reaches a federal court as the United States versus one State, and the courts issue an injunction. (If multiple States pass such laws, each state gets their own injunction, or the parties agree to consolidates the cases.)
They would each need to pass such a law individually. But, in terms of enforcement, we wouldn’t expect to see this as a case of the IRS needing to invade, solely, Nevada and being done with it. If 30 states, independently decide that they need fair warning to adjust to the end of shared funding programs, then that’s very difficult for the Federal government to somehow win by force.