The weird part is, they were talking about the EPA at the time:
Questions abound about how the [EPA] would impose its own climate plans on behalf of states or make sure the states that do submit plans actually stick to them.
Also up in the air: whether the agency has the right to hit the violators with penalties that could even include the loss of federal highway dollars — one of the main fiscal weapons Washington has used to get states to toe the line on everything from motorcycle helmet laws to underage drinking.
Wait, what? Is Politico admitting that the US government engages in the habitual practice of using federal subsidies to force individual states to do its bidding? And that such a tactic is used in a variety of circumstances and situations? I mean, I know that it’s true – and the practice is not exactly new – but usually people don’t want to talk about it…
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy gave only an indirect answer last week after Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe asked her how the agency would handle states that drag their feet. “Would the EPA consider withholding federal highway funding?” the Oklahoma Republican asked. “Or would you say no?”
Continue reading Politico more or less gives the game away on King v. Burwell.