What's new

Trump to Fox News: I may defund California as 'a weapon' to fight illegal immigration

Zibago

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 21, 2012
37,008
12
58,778
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Trump to Fox News: I may defund California as 'a weapon' to fight illegal immigration
Harriet Taylor | @Harri8t
5 Hours AgoCNBC.com
1.9K
SHARES
























104258237-GettyImages-633584046.530x298.jpg

Getty Images
President Donald Trump meets with executives and union representatives from the Harley Davidson company at the White House on February 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump is prepared to deprive the State of California of federal funding if it votes to become a sanctuary state, he said in a Fox News interview.

"If we have to, we'll defund," he said. "We give tremendous amounts of money to California."

California Democrats in the Senate stepped up their fight against the president last week, advancing legislation that would provide statewide sanctuary for immigrants and keep local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities.

The president told Fox he is very much opposed to sanctuary cities, which he called "ridiculous."

"They breed crime, there's a lot of problems," he said.

In a 2016 analysis by WalletHub that ranked most and least federally dependent states, the Golden State came in at number 46 on the list.

However, the University of California receives at least $9 billion in an assortment of grants, financial aid and research—all of which could be imperiled if Trump made good on a threat he made last week to deprive the university of funds in response to protests that roiled the school.


California is "out of control" in many ways, and voters agree "otherwise they wouldnt have voted for me," he added. Trump lost California, which leans left politically, by a wide margin to former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

"I don't want to defund the state or city, I don't want to defund anybody, I want to give them the money they need to properly operate a city or a state," Trump said.

That said, "if they're going to have sanctuary cities we may have to do that - certainly that would be a weapon."


104261411-GettyImages-633716654.600x400.jpg

Boockvar: Trump honeymoon over Friday, 3 Feb 2017 | 3:52 PM ET | 01:50




Harriet Taylor
CNBC Tech Reporter
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/trum...es.html?_source=FacebookINT&__source=facebook
:pop:
 
Good luck with that Donald. Federal aid only makes up roughly a quarter of our state budget in total. Secondly, I'm not sure how much funding he can legally cut to the state on his own. Most of it will likely require Congressional approval.

Not to mention that any such action will likely be challenged in court, with a good chance of it being blocked.
 
Good luck with that Donald. Federal aid only makes up roughly a quarter of our state budget in total. Secondly, I'm not sure how much funding he can legally cut to the state on his own. Most of it will likely require Congressional approval.

Not to mention that any such action will likely be challenged in court, with a good chance of it being blocked.
does it mean california residents dont have to pay federal tax if they dont get any share of it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
California doesn't have industry. It has a bubble economy. California has high unemployment and it would collapse without federal funding. Donald Trump can invoke the constitution and deploy federal military to arrest the governor of California for treason if California secedes.

It has diverse culture and talent. It will survive fine.

Talking about industry, it has not much manufacturing but it has agriculture and IT. These two will propel CA to great heights.
 
California doesn't have industry. It has a bubble economy. California has high unemployment and it would collapse without federal funding. Donald Trump can invoke the constitution and deploy federal military to arrest the governor of California for treason if California secedes.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. California is perhaps the most economically successful state in the union. It is involved in many different industries---more than just about any other state, in fact. And it does not have high unemployment.

No one is seceding genius, try visiting the state.
 
does it mean california residents dont have to pay federal tax if they dont get any share of it?


No, what it means is that the vast majority of our state government's funds do not come from the federal government. And as I said, it's not clear that the President has the authority to unilaterally cut major sources of federal funding without Congressional approval. And any such action will almost certainly be challenged in court by the State of California anyway, with a good chance of it being blocked.
 
This seems to be core funding, not total funding.


This makes up the vast majority of the university's funding, and is only what is necessary for UCLA to function. Everything else is just extra.


"• UCLA’s core budget pays for basic academic programs, faculty salaries, operations of academic departments, core administrative needs, the police department, utilities and more — these funds “keep the lights on” at the university.

• The university brings in other revenue from housing, the medical enterprise, research grants, gifts made for specific purposes, UCLA athletics, ASUCLA and other sources, but most of those funds are restricted and cannot be used for general operating costs, i.e. “keeping the lights on.”

http://advocacy.ucla.edu/mythbusters-public-funding/


State (California) funding is crucial to UCLA, Federal funding is not.
 
Well, it's entirely within his rights to incentivise federal funds - use of such incentives under the Taxation and Spending clause [of the constitution] has been used to influence policy of states for decades.

Most of it will likely require Congressional approval.

Congressional approval is required for appropriation, not reduction. This holds true for any taxation or revenue.
 
Congressional approval is required for appropriation, not reduction. This holds true for any taxation or revenue.


Not exactly. It seems I was right. From an article published today in the LA Times (and my posts from yesterday):

And any such action will almost certainly be challenged in court by the State of California anyway, with a good chance of it being blocked.


"For one thing, court decisions have restricted a president’s ability to hold back federal money from state and local governments. There has to be a connection — a nexus — between the federal funds and the local program that’s being stiffed.

Presumably federal healthcare dollars, for example, can’t be withheld merely because a state refuses to help the feds enforce immigration laws."

Secondly, I'm not sure how much funding he can legally cut to the state on his own. Most of it will likely require Congressional approval.

"Second, an executive order such as Trump signed is not a statute. A federal statute — a law — can only be passed by Congress. And Congress has the exclusive power to appropriate money."


"So it’s not like Trump can just call up some staffer and tell him not to cut any more checks for California — both the state government and the so-called sanctuary cities."


"The president’s order says it’s his policy to “ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.” So that last phrase is significant.

Trump couldn’t cut the funds alone. If a federal law mandated them, Congress presumably would need to change that law."

"Also, because of court nexus decisions, the feds apparently could eliminate federal dollars to a law enforcement agency if it didn’t cooperate on illegal immigration. But it couldn’t cut back, for example, on welfare programs."

No, what it means is that the vast majority of our state government's funds do not come from the federal government.


"The Legislative Analyst’s Office counted all the federal money spent in California during 2015 and it totaled about $368 billion. But 22% was Social Security payments and 19% went for Medicare. That stuff is bulletproof. Also, 15% was spent on Medi-Cal healthcare for the poor and 9% on defense contracts."

"California could lose a few bucks if Trump figures out what he’s doing. But it probably would amount to little more than what’s generally called budget dust."


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...ederal-dollars-california-20170206-story.html
 
Not exactly. It seems I was right. From an article published today in the LA Times (and my posts from yesterday): "For one thing, court decisions have restricted a president’s ability to hold back federal money from state and local governments. There has to be a connection — a nexus — between the federal funds and the local program that’s being stiffed.

Thanks for your post. There are two distinct issues.

1. Whether congressional approval is required for reducing spending - it is not - as opposed to appropriation.

2. Whether the federal incentives can be constitutionally withdrawn - they can provided they satisfy the nexus rule - as you correctly note.

I commented only on the former - since I have not seen or read the policy / law under which California gets the Federal funding that Trump is threatening to withdraw.

Most of federal aid is for medicare and social security though - so it will not be easy to cut those dollars back.
 
Thanks for your post. There are two distinct issues.

1. Whether congressional approval is required for reducing spending - it is not - as opposed to appropriation.

2. Whether the federal incentives can be constitutionally withdrawn - they can provided they satisfy the nexus rule - as you correctly note.

I commented only on the former - since I have not seen or read the policy / law under which California gets the Federal funding that Trump is threatening to withdraw.

Most of federal aid is for medicare and social security though - so it will not be easy to cut those dollars back.


Well, we are essentially in agreement here. When you quoted that part of my post, my point was that most of the cuts will require Congressional approval precisely because of the nexus rule.
 
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. California is perhaps the most economically successful state in the union. It is involved in many different industries---more than just about any other state, in fact. And it does not have high unemployment.

No one is seceding genius, try visiting the state.
oh i loved in california.its a heaven.specialy the bay area.where do u live
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom