While the Mississippi House and Senate squabble over the tax swap bill, the battle royale may be for naught. It appears Congress might have banned states from cutting taxes in the covid-19 relief bill passed this week. Our friends at the Wall Street Journal editorial page reported Tuesday:
But here’s the political gut punch. The bill explicitly bars states from cutting taxes. States “shall not use the funds,” the bill says, “to either directly or indirectly [our emphasis] offset a reduction in the net tax revenue” that results “from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.”
Wow. Democrats in Washington are trying to dictate to governors and state legislatures that they can’t change their tax laws if they accept their share of the $1.9 trillion. The sweeping prohibition would last through 2024, and the bill grants Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen authority to write regulations “as may be necessary or appropriate to carry” it out.
The language is so expansive that states could be limited from making any changes to their tax codes that reduce revenue even if they don’t use federal funds as direct offsets. Much will depend on how Ms. Yellen defines “indirectly.” States that don’t comply with her interpretation will have to repay federal funds.
Several states including West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas and Idaho are considering tax cuts to attract people and business. Some GOP legislatures also want to start or expand private-school choice programs that give tax credits to businesses and individuals that donate money for scholarships. Treasury could say these policies break the law. Beltway Democrats are essentially barring GOP-led states from improving their competitiveness against high-tax Democratic states. Column
Oh well, at least this means the House might stop killing the Senate's bills.
Conservatives shouldn't gripe. This crap started with South Dakota v. Dole back in the 1980's. Tying conditions to receipt of federal funds was a great thing since we were raising the teen drinking age. Who could be against that, right? Well, any simpleton should see where that was going. It took 35 years but now the feds can use federal funds to ban states from cutting taxes. This is what happens when the righteous pursue the right goals with the wrong means.
27 comments:
All of this back and forth is very taxing.
I think the intent is prevent states from using relief money to fund tax cuts, which I agree with. But, as KF wrote, "what happens when the righteous pursue the right goals with the wrong means." Here come the talking heads, with the volume turned up to 11.
The WV governor said Manchin put that in there just to screw him.
The relief money shouldn’t be a general fund. I agree with the dems.
lol
Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's "anti-commandeering" doctrine prohibits Congress from using federal funds to coerce states to do or not do something. The provision barring state tax cuts that was slipped into this law is coercion.
While promoting the bill, all the Dems said that the $1.9 trillion in relief was all necessary since we are suffering in the worst pandemic since the beginning of time and that all of the states are in dire straits and need every dollar of this money. Thus, according to the Dems', all 50 states are under great duress and could not possibly have any choice but to accept the federal funds, since all those funds are necessary to bring our country back from the verge of extinction. Tying a "no state tax cuts" provision to this emergency stimulus funding is the definition of coercion by Congress.
They should have just used the military’s budget for this like Trump did with his wall. No need to raise new funds when the military budget is so bloated and not providing any noticeable benefit to the taxpayer.
3:42. how much new wall was built? and i don’t think mexico paid for any of it either..
Wow that’s some funny stuff there 3:42 and 4:35. See right about now looking at the southern border I kinda wish that wall was finished. Leave it to democrats to try crap like this. Here take this money but that helping out your constituents no way don’t do that. Pitiful
Hey 2:30, the same WV governor who allowed his resort to host a maskless NYE ball then claimed he didn’t know, the one who cant live in the state’s mansion b/c it doesn’t have an elevator and he’s to obese to walk a flight of stairs, the one who generally clueless on how his state operates, and ran as a Democratic to get elected but then became a Republican? Yeah, Manchin wants to screw him. Lol.
This post is not an endorsement of $1.9T in new debt, just pointing out that citing the WV Guv is about one step above citing Mel Brooks as Guv in Blazing Saddles.
Quit taking illicit federal bribes and cut taxes all you want.
2 trillion....2 trillion....2 trillion....The words "tax cut" shall never be
uttered by the tongues of American men, women, or whatever forever.
Delbert is pissed at Gunn.
Gunn is pissed at Delbert.
(They are both pissed at Shane)
I doubt this plan makes it to the Governor's desk.
As Shane is pissed at both of them.
A cluster phuk looms between all of these egotistical little men.
Tater’s gonna Tate?
No doubt @6:16 the irony that an anonymous piss ant left your comment is completely lost on you.
What's the old saying about being able to steal more with a pen than a gun?
Mississippi stop taking federal funds? What? What?
A trillion here and a trillion there, pretty soon we are talking about real money.
"...the military budget is so bloated and not providing any noticeable benefit to the taxpayer."
Undoubtedly typed by either a craft beer sipper or a trendy wine connoisseur, sitting amongst his magazine prescriptions in his underwear, eating frosted flakes and watching The View.
The mere fact that you pansies don't notice the benefit is the definition of your freedom and protection. Whether you see a vapor trail 14 miles high or a low altitude flyover at the stadium, you can scratch your balls and notice the benefit of the military.
@7:51 I remember when the saying was a billion here and a billion there....
Dang, I'm getting old.
@8:36 AM - I think that was a troll post, but he is probably sipping on cheap Napa Valley white wine (whine) with french cheese while dreaming of Hillary being in the White House. He also has a back-up plan to head to Canada if there is another draft.
If you do not want any of the money please send it to me.
I’ll make sure it goes to someone in need
$dontbeahypocriteandbitchaboutgovtmoneyandthentakeitbitch
A politician's wet dream - bribing the taxpayers with their own money.
Ah, the hypocrisy of a party that was once concerned about debt is willing to insure it increases.
Guess now Gunn will quit calling it a tax "cut" and properly refer to it by what it really is - a tax "swap". That way Empower/AFPs legislative agenda might sneak in under Pelosi's restriction. Interesting bedfellows.
@8:36 - what exactly is the benefit of a stadium flyover to the taxpayer?
That guy Gerard brought in to head up Empower really screwed the pooch on this bill.
Post a Comment