Posted on 04/30/2020 8:02:31 AM PDT by Steve1999
President Donald Trump has warned Democrats that he will demand "adjustments" for sanctuary cities as a condition of bailout aid for states.The president suggested he may withhold funding from states with "radical left" sanctuaries in the next round of emergency coronavirus relief.Democrats are demanding at least $500 billion to fill state coffers drained by business shutdowns amid the COVID-19 crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at nnettle.com ...
Wailing and teeth gnashing in 3,...2,...
There goes Wayne County’s (Michigan) money.
There could be an enormous bailout from Washington coming.
I heard DeBlasio say New York City alone needs $10 billion.
I read another story where Illinois need about $40 billion.
If you start adding up all the shortfalls from all the cities and states, it’s going to be an eye popping number.
I hope we can have an honest debate in Congress, about whether we should go down that road at all, as opposed to simply haggling about how much we’re going to pay in bailout funds for all these underfunded cities and states.
You’ll love this!
Love this, two can play this leverage game you rat scumbags.
The debate has already moved to “How much?”, McConnell admitted yesterday.
President Trump should keep fund away from sanctuary cities and states, sanctuaries caused the pandemic. The mayors and governors brought in thousand if not million of illegals without medically vetting any of them. Thanks bureaucrats.
This is going to be ‘High Stakes Poker’ !!!
Art of the deal...
NY city and Illinois are crying the loudest because they were bankrupt to begin with, which they were well aware of before the virus.
Cuomo and others stock piling medical products they say to help other countries etc. is really to ‘sell’ and make a profit.
Not really his call.
He can veto any legislation that sends money to those states but he has to execute the legislation if he allows it to become law.
The Constitution prohibits the federal government from pressuring states with tax/spending incentives if the feds don't have the power to order the states to do whatever it is directly. Feds can only withhold funds for things directly relating to the specific policy at issue.
Carter tried to ban all highway funds from states that refused to go to 55, and he couldn't. Obama tried to ban all Medicaid funds from states that refused to expand Medicaid, and SCOTUS shot that down. The only funds that were allowed to be withdrawn were those that would have gone to the expanded coverage. But he couldn't take away all Medicaid funds.
All the Feds can do is withhold funds to the limited extent they are directly related to the cost of the illegals. But he can't say "no federal funds of any kind if you are a sanctuary state/city".
It's a valid and needed constitutional principle. Just sucks that it works against us in this instance.
Sounds appropriate
It’s no bargain to get an agreement from someone to stop doing something that is already illegal for a bailout.
I could use 1 billion myself. ;)
WHY should any taxpayer in Wyoming or Kansas have to pay to support the flagrant spending practices of Illinois/New York/California/ or anywhere else?
These totally Democrat controlled places have literally ‘run the state into the ditches’...and they DEMAND to be bailed out?
Not only NO-—BUT HELL NO !!!
I wish he would just do it without warning.
“If you’re going to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.”
Excellent idea.But it’s hard to see him winning the court battle that would ensue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.