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?”
…ah. That would be why. Yes, it is useful to have a Senate chairman who is happy to ask questions that have only awkward answers.
Moving along: this is, of course, relevant because one of the original arguments against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell was that of course the federal government would never use Obamacare subsidies as an incentive to encourage states to set up their own state exchanges. This tactic was largely abandoned when it became clear that the argument was stuttering nonsense on stilts, but I remain mildly surprised that it’s now so universally, if tacitly, agreed that the feds have a history of using the revenues from the Treasury as both carrot, and stick.
Moe Lane
Although I still expect SCOTUS to uphold the subsidies. But maybe, just maybe, we get a five justice majority that holds that this practice, in general, is unconstitutional.
I expect the Court to avoid such an issue because the financial “carrot and stick” is well within Congress’ enumerated powers.* The easier route is to look at the statute and decide if the definition of “state” in the statute is what Congress meant.
That is much easier than heading into the Constitutional swamp, and something Congress can fix on its own.
*Congress can establish a navy and set up dockyards and – hey, the first six frigates all get built in six different places! Funny how such a thing could happen, sort of like ensuring that a new weapons system gets built from parts that are produced in certain states and congressional districts.
The “arguments” in King v. Burwell seemed .. awfully rehearsed. (and a tad like Duck Dynasty, somehow..)
.
That said, I got the impression that Kennedy was desperately seeking a way to claim that this kind of carrot+stick thing *never happened before* .. nevermind that “prior art” goes a long, *long* way back.
.
Reminded me of an ostrich looking for some sand to bury its’ head in…
.
Mew