• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
How much funding crosses from nudging to forcing I don't know, but they could definitely tie some funding to it and I'm pretty sure that's what Obama is trying to do here.


There is a limit to it, though. They can't deny all education funding, for instance. How much they can deny no one really knows.
Click to expand...

The ACA case really made the power of the federal government to do things like this very questionable, in their ruling about the medicare expansion.
 
S

Slurpy2k20

Member
That was the most awkward drink I've seen in my life. I mean, fuck. The way he took a panicked glance towards the camera as if he was sneaking a hit or something.. I mean, he deserves all the ridicule he's getting if he doesnt have the basic skills not to do it in such an awkward fashion.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
The ACA case really made the power of the federal government to do things like this very questionable, in their ruling about the medicare expansion.
Click to expand...

We accordingly asked whether “the financial inducement offered by Congress” was “so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’ ” Id., at 211 (quoting Steward Machine, supra, at 590). By “financial inducement” the Court meant the threat of losing five percent of highway funds; no new money was offered to the States to raise their drinking ages. We found that the inducement was not impermissibly coercive, because Congress was offering only “relatively mild encouragement to the States.” Dole, 483 U. S., at 211. We observed that “all South Dakota would lose if she adheres to her chosen course as to a suitable minimum drinking age is 5%” of her highway funds. Ibid. In fact, the federal funds at stake constituted less than half of one percent of South Dakota’s budget at the time. See Nat. Assn. of State Budget Officers, The State Expenditure Report 59 (1987); South Dakota v. Dole, 791 F. 2d 628, 630 (CA8 1986). In consequence, “we conclude[d] that [the] encouragement to state action [was] a valid use of the spending power.” Dole, 483 U. S., at 212. Whether to accept the drinking age change “remain[ed] the prerogative of the States not merely in theory but in fact.” Id., at 211–212.

In this case, the financial “inducement” Congress has chosen is much more than “relatively mild encouragement”—it is a gun to the head. Section 1396c of the Medicaid Act provides that if a State’s Medicaid plan does not comply with the Act’s requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may declare that “further payments will not be made to the State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396c. A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely “a relatively small percentage” of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it. Dole, supra, at 211. Medicaid spending accounts for over 20 percent of the average State’s total budget, with federal funds covering 50 to 83 percent of those costs. See Nat. Assn. of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Year 2010 State Expenditure Report, p. 11, Table 5 (2011); 42 U. S. C. §1396d(b). The Federal Government estimates that it will pay out approximately $3.3 trillion between 2010 and 2019 in order to cover the costs of pre-expansion Medicaid. Brief for United States 10, n. 6. In addition, the States have developed intricate statutory and administrative regimes over the course of many decades to implement their objectives under existing Medicaid. It is easy to see how the Dole Court could conclude that the threatened loss of less than half of one percent of South Dakota’s budget left that State with a “prerogative” to reject Congress’s desired policy, “not merely in theory but in fact.” 483 U. S., at 211–212. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget, in contrast, is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.
Click to expand...

All we know is what is considered encouragement (5% of program, <1% of total budget) and what is coerce (100% of program, 20% of budget), but we don't know when one becomes the other.

I wouldn't say it's been limited. No one knows where that line is.
 
T

Trurl

Banned
This is a really general question, but does anyone know of any quality literature written on the effects of the minimum wage?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
All we know is what is considered encouragement (5% of program, <1% of total budget) and what is coerce (100% of program, 20% of budget), but we don't know when one becomes the other.

I wouldn't say it's been limited. No one knows where that line is.
Click to expand...

I just don't remember it ever being called coercion when congress withholds fund. (I disagree with the ruling because I don't think congress should be obliged to fund states, I think they should have every right to "hold a gun to their head"). So by saying the fed cannot eliminate funding I think thats limiting the feds power a lot. (I could be wrong about this historically.)

Can't this be used the same way on say the drinking age and federal funding law? Though that does have only a 10% decrease
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I just don't remember it ever being called coercion when congress withholds fund. (I disagree with the ruling because I don't think congress should be obliged to fund states, I think they should have every right to "hold a gun to their head"). So by saying the fed cannot eliminate funding I think thats limiting the feds power a lot. (I could be wrong about this historically.)

Can't this be used the same way on say the drinking age and federal funding law? Though that does have only a 10% decrease
Click to expand...

My point is that they already made this claim in South Dakota versus Dole but ruled in that case the funding was too small to be coercive. But before the ACA we already knew there was a line out there somewhere. It's a separate discussion whether it should be that way (IMO, the US Constitution makes it clear there is but for another day)

BTW, South Dakota v Dole was about the drinking age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
My point is that they already made this claim in South Dakota versus Dole but ruled in that case the funding was too small to be coercive. But before the ACA we already knew there was a line out there somewhere.

BTW, South Dakota v Dole was about the drinking age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Click to expand...

ok never knew about that case, it seems to just further refine the limit but still not delineate it as you said.

Still disagree that congress is obligated to "preexisting funds"
 
T

Touchdown

Banned
Poland Spring finally jumps on gulpgate
http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/poland-spring-finally-jumps-on-rubio-water-bottle-gate-promo-opp_b57502

poland-spring.jpg
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
ok never knew about that case, it seems to just further refine the limit but still not delineate it as you said.

Still disagree that congress is obligated to "preexisting funds"
Click to expand...

If congress can bribe states to do everything it wants, kind of defeats the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
If congress can bribe states to do everything it wants, kind of defeats the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution
Click to expand...

Why are states obliged to federal funds? the constitution says congress has absolute control over how the federal government spends its money. That seems to be consistent with federalism let them fund themselves if they don't want to follow the requirements.
 
G

gcubed

Member
If his response was pre recorded why in gods name did they leave that in there.

Re- the hold... its not a hard question to answer is it?
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Fuchsdh said:
The fact is that the modern era is a world where big government is a necessity. Either you adapt to that or you delude yourself into thinking that its not. (Or you let corporations run the world because thats somehow better.)

I don't get how people can be such strict constructionists when the whole reason the Constituion has endured longer than any other in the world is because they left room to change and reinterpret it. The Founding Fathers might have been a bunch of white racists by today's standard, but they had the foresight to realize the future wouldn't be like their present. That's pretty damn progressive and the reason we should celebrate them every waking day.
Click to expand...

The problem is, when the Constitution becomes too easy to reinterpret and anyone can give a new meaning to it when they want to, the Constitution becomes worthless. The whole point of it is to structure the system that can't be changed on a whim.

That's why I'm in favor of a new less vague Constitution that is instead easier to amend.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I could understand holds on nominees and bills in fucking 1930 when senators might need time to travel back to Washington in order to vote...but it's 2013. Holds serve no purpose. I'm no Brennan fan but he deserves and up or down vote like every other cabinet member, ever. Same with Hagel, who I like more.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Why are states obliged to federal funds? the constitution says congress has absolute control over how the federal government spends its money. That seems to be consistent with federalism let them fund themselves if they don't want to follow the requirements.
Click to expand...

One ought not to interpret a document as saying something it was clearly not intended to say. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and all that. The Constitution clearly envisions some sphere in which states are supreme. It's entirely at odds with that to turn around and endorse as legal Congress levying a 100% tax on everything which it then gives right back to everyone who lives in states that do everything Congress says in proportion to the amount they paid in. There's clearly a line somewhere, although it's not clearly in any particular place.

If Congress' own taxes had no impact on states' ability to fund themselves - if we weren't talking about a substantial amount of money - then there'd be no coercion. But if a state's defiance of Congress results in it losing a substantial amount of money, then that does impact its ability to fund its own programs.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Why are states obliged to federal funds? the constitution says congress has absolute control over how the federal government spends its money. That seems to be consistent with federalism let them fund themselves if they don't want to follow the requirements.
Click to expand...

States can't compete.

Congress takes in 20% of GDP historically via taxes (lower now though). Since states cannot print their own money, states have to tax to spend (they can borrow short term but eventually would default).

But states cannot raise enough revenues to cover what the feds pay for. I mean, they could, but everyone would be out of a job quickly The fact that the federal gov't controls most taxes the way it does, makes it not realistically feasible in today's world for the States to say "thank but no thanks" if the US gov't imposed regulations on anything it wanted conditional to all spending.

The states really have no choice. It's either accept the money or get rid of transportation, education, etc or a massive scaling back.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
If congress can bribe states to do everything it wants, kind of defeats the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution
Click to expand...

(1) I don't think that's true. If it is, it puts the lie to the states' alleged sovereignty, which means the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution is already defeated.

(2) I would love to defeat the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
States can't compete.

Congress takes in 20% of GDP historically via taxes (lower now though). Since states cannot print their own money, states have to tax to spend (they can borrow short term but eventually would default).

But states cannot raise enough revenues to cover what the feds pay for. I mean, they could, but everyone would be out of a job quickly The fact that the federal gov't controls most taxes the way it does, makes it not realistically feasible in today's world for the States to say "thank but no thanks" if the US gov't imposed regulations on anything it wanted conditional to all spending.

The states really have no choice. It's either accept the money or get rid of transportation, education, etc or a massive scaling back.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the constitutionality of it though? I don't think the constitution mandates federal to state transfers of money. I understand the practical argument but not the constitutional one. It seems to create a limit out of nowhere

empty vessel said:
(2) I would love to defeat the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
L

leroidys

Member
Sorry if this has been posted, but I have another opportunity to crow about being a Washingtonian:

Pq0x7rj.jpg


Apparently 1 of only 5 states where white males went for Obama. Which is a good thing, because boy, are we white. Not as white as Oregon though.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Why?
Click to expand...

All indications are that federalism retards progress and needlessly complicates what would otherwise be simple solutions to obvious problems. There is something to be said for marginally inefficient and unresponsive government. There is little to be said in favor of dreadfully inefficient and unresponsive government. Federalism (at least our version of it) accomplishes the latter. It may have had a place in an 18th century world. It doesn't have much of one in the 21st century.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
leroidys said:
Sorry if this has been posted, but I have another opportunity to crow about being a Washingtonian:

Pq0x7rj.jpg


Apparently 1 of only 5 states where white males went for Obama. Which is a good thing, because boy, are we white. Not as white as Oregon though.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of this. We have non-whites, they vote. Why are we talking about hypothetical that haven't been valid for 150 years. I understand highlighting the fact that white men went for Romney but this hypothetical "if only white men voted" seems silly.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
What does any of this have to do with the constitutionality of it though? I don't think the constitution mandates federal to state transfers of money. I understand the practical argument but not the constitutional one. It seems to create a limit out of nowhere
Click to expand...

No one is a thorough literalist. That'd be an extremely silly way to interpret a document that's clearly written so as to require reasonable judgment calls.

The constitutionality argument is that, if the Constitution allows the federal government to do this, then the Constitution really has no room for states' rights at all. But that's absurd - clearly the Constitution intends to leave substantial authority to the states.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
empty vessel said:
All indications are that federalism retards progress and needlessly complicates what would otherwise be simple solutions to obvious problems. There is something to be said for marginally inefficient and unresponsive government. There is little to be said in favor of dreadfully inefficient and unresponsive government. Federalism (at least our version of it) accomplishes the latter. It may have had a place in an 18th century world. It doesn't have much of one in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

What about federalism promoting things that have later become national policy: Women voting, outlawing slavery, income tax, weed legalization, non-discrimination, integration, gay marriage etc?

I don't understand how it "retards" progress.
And I don't believe that answers are so simple as you make it out to be. I don't trust people who treat political problems as something that can be treated like a science and their always is a perfect rational response.

Politics is more than that. Its a mixture of tradition, new ideas, rationalism, push back, among other things. Its the mixture of all of these that I feel makes the best government.
 
L

leroidys

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I don't understand the point of this. We have non-whites, they vote. Why are we talking about hypothetical that haven't been valid for 150 years. I understand highlighting the fact that white men went for Romney but this hypothetical "if only white men voted" seems silly.
Click to expand...

You don't think voting behavior/demographic correlation is worth remarking on? I don't understand.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
No one is a thorough literalist. That'd be an extremely silly way to interpret a document that's clearly written so as to require reasonable judgment calls.

The constitutionality argument is that, if the Constitution allows the federal government to do this, then the Constitution really has no room for states' rights at all. But that's absurd - clearly the Constitution intends to leave substantial authority to the states.
Click to expand...

I don't see this argument at all though. They have ways of raising their own revenue.

I should say I agree that the policy needs to be related. You can't tie highway spending to education laws or things that have nothing to do with each other. The line of think that is in the ACA case puts a lot of money at risk and could hurt things like title IX, other non-discrimination acts and other laws that leverage the congress' spending power.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
leroidys said:
You don't think voting behavior/demographic correlation is worth remarking on? I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I do. I was just commenting and the alternate reality part when its based on an absurd premise (only white men voting). I think its worth commenting on the fact that white men went to romney in most states. And I think an map like that taking into consideration voter id laws would be valid.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I don't see this argument at all though. They have ways of raising their own revenue.

I should say I agree that the policy needs to be related. You can't tie highway spending to education laws or things that have nothing to do with each other. The line of think that is in the ACA case puts a lot of money at risk and could hurt things like title IX, other non-discrimination acts and other laws that leverage the congress' spending power.
Click to expand...

Well, first, why? Why is it constitutional to tie lots of "related" funding to some new demand, but unconstitutional to tie "unrelated" funding to it? What's the constitutional argument for that? Edit: Where "related" is meant broadly - "health care related", for example.

Second, there's a limited amount of revenue to be had. We spend about 15% of GDP on health care. If the federal government took over all health care spending and raised taxes to make up for it, each state would be paying about 15% of GDP in taxes for health care. If the federal government conditions paying for health care in the state on compliance with some new health care policy, then the federal government has de facto mandated the new policy. A state can't just shrug and raise 15% of GDP elsewhere.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
Well, first, why? Why is it constitutional to tie lots of "related" funding to some new demand, but unconstitutional to tie "unrelated" funding to it? What's the constitutional argument for that? Edit: Where "related" is meant broadly - "health care related", for example.
Click to expand...

I'd say it was implied with the list of enumerated powers, necessarily and proper clause, 10th amendment.

Kind of like the right to privacy. penumbra doctrine

(I'm not a legal scholar and I can be wrong. Most of the people writing these opinions have studied much more law than me.)
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I'd say it was implied with the list of enumerated powers, necessarily and proper clause, 10th amendment.

Kind of like the right to privacy. penumbra doctrine

(I'm not a legal scholar and I can be wrong. Most of the people writing these opinions have studied much more law than me.)
Click to expand...

It just seems very strange to me to be fine with that level of reading stuff into the text but to balk at recognizing that coercing and incentivizing exist on the same spectrum.

Sure, of necessity the line is going to be arbitrary. But the line clearly exists somewhere between the federal government conditioning a dollar and 50% of a state's GDP on compliance with some policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
954
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
523
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
851
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom