this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
783 points (99.4% liked)

politics

24430 readers
2466 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I keep seeing this idea, and I keep asking how is could even be mechanically accomplished, but so far no answers found. My understanding is most of the money simply flows directly to the Fed via our income taxes. Where in the process can the State interrupt that process?

Wouldn't basically everyone have to manually go adjust their W2 withholdings in order to stop paying the Fed?

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

States would need to set up special funds and force companies in their states to pay all withholding s into those funds, creating a middleman between tax payers and the federal government. Honestly, it’s a good idea even aside from present circumstances since it gives states additional options against the abuses of federal government.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Oooh, yes, a middleman system would be brilliant for this!

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I was wondering about that, too. The article says

Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government.

I have no idea how much that would add up to, and I wonder if the Feds would be able to go after individual employees for not having received the federal taxes they owe, leaving it to the employees to sue the State to reimburse them for the amount that was withheld.

The second one, grant payments owed back, would be a limited amount since the Feds would probably retaliate by cutting off future grant funding. Overall it doesn't seem like a workable strategy.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

No, none of this is possible because it violates supremacy law in every way imaginable (unfortunately). Even if the states withheld or delayed payments, the courts will almost always side with the federal government when it comes to taxes, even if said federal government is LITERALLY trying to do the same to the states.

We’d need rogue courts too

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 48 minutes ago

No, none of this is possible because it violates supremacy law in every way imaginable (unfortunately).

So? The Constitution is dead. Stop fellating its corpse.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, rule of law doesn't matter anymore anyways.

So... The states could just ... Ignore it? Just like the fed has been.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

This is the truth. The executive is already choosing when they want to ignore courts, meaning the rule of law is already compromised. It's only a matter of time before everyone takes the stance that laws are merely optional.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Yeah that’s true, let the chaos begin then