CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“DEFUNDING CALIFORNIA: WHOSE MONEY IS IT?”
Time and again, President Trump threatens to withhold federal
grants from California cities, universities and the state itself unless they
accept policies he wants to pursue, from large-scale deportation of
undocumented immigrants to bashing the heads of campus protestors.
“California is in many ways out of control,” he said in one recent
interview. Out of his control, he seemed to mean. Then, asked if “defunding is
your weapon of choice” to force the state into line, he allowed that “It’s a
weapon. We give them a hell of a lot of money. I don’t want to defund a state
or a city. I don’t want to defund anybody…If they’re going to have sanctuary
cities, we may have to do that. Certainly, that would be a weapon.”
Two questions he wasn’t asked: Whose
money is he talking about? And, who gets most of that money?
The answer to the second question is
easy: Most federal money arriving here goes to ordinary people, via Social
Security payments, Medicare and Medi-Cal payments. That accounts for the vast
majority of the $367.8 billion the federal government spends in California every
year. (The figure comes from a Tax Foundation study.)
Meanwhile, Californians pay in much
more than that in income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. So we’re really
talking about our own money here, with the federal government mostly acting as
a conduit.
Should California adopt a wide
“sanctuary state” policy requiring all cities and counties to follow the
practice of police in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Ana and other
California cities that – among other things – don’t inquire about the immigration
status of most people they arrest, Trump says, “If we have to, we’ll defund.”
He plainly thinks he can take any federal funds he likes from
California and its cities. Does he also propose to cut off Social Security
benefits to Californians if legislators adopt the plan they’re now considering?
No one knows precisely what Trump intends. But he plainly believes
he can withhold funds at his will.
But that’s not how most federal grants work. Repeated court
decisions, like the 1987 case of South
Dakota v. Dole, say there has to be some link between the purpose for
withholding federal grants and whatever program they’re being taken from.
This means that Trump cannot withhold Pell Grant money from
California students just because he didn’t like it when police failed to beat
black-clad marauders who violently took over a demonstration at UC Berkeley
that began as a peaceful protest over a scheduled speech by an editor of the
alternative right website Breitbart News. Nor can he out of pique withhold cancer
research funding.
He also can’t take money from sewer or mass transit projects if
he’s unhappy with policing in sanctuary cities getting those grants.
But the decisions probably do mean
that if Berkeley again cancels a similar sort of speech, Trump could halt
grants used in part to pay campus speakers – although there is no record of
federal funds paying for this.
A significant question is why Trump
singles out California, which contains a relatively small minority of the
nation’s 106 sanctuary cities. Why, for example, did he not threaten Tucson,
Ariz., whose sanctuary policy is one of the oldest, dating from the 1980s?
Might it be relate to the fact he
carried Arizona last fall while losing California by more than 4.5 million
votes? Is this more a matter of revenge than policy?
Only Trump knows what he intends and
why, just as only he knows why he left Saudi Arabia off the list of nations
whose citizens he’s trying to deny admission to the United States, when most
perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the most significant terror ever on American
soil, came from there.
Like much of Trump’s agenda, widely
defunding California would require action from Congress. It’s doubtful many
California Republican House members would meekly acquiesce in withholding funds
from the state in a general, non-targeted way that could severely affect their
constituents.
All of which makes it highly unlikely
that Trump alone can deny much money to California, even if he tries. That’s
only fair, since the money he’s talking about actually comes from Californians,
even if it is later mingled with other funds while in the Treasury.
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment