Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes in Trump rebuke. Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Jun 7, 2025

MSN Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes in Trump rebuke.

Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense. But California should take care of Californias , not Red States. Red states what this .That's their problem .And they should get what they want.

John G. · Jun 7, 2025

Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes

LOL! That amounts to secession.
Would California state troopers really want to tackle the US armed forces?

ozso · Jun 7, 2025

Sounds like he's trying to start a civil war. I'm surprised there hasn't been a recall of him as governor yet. He seems a lot worse at the job than Gray Davis was.

Maria Billingsley · Jun 7, 2025

Trump started this whole thing by threatening to take away Federal funding from California. If Newsome withheld funding there would be nothing to take away. Additionally, California is considered a donor state. We gave approximately 800 Billion in 2024 to the Federal Government and received substantially less back into our state. I really wish those who dislike California would just be more reasonable with their accusations and appreciate our contributions to this country!

Hans Blaster · Jun 7, 2025

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense. But California should take care of Californias , not Red States. Red states what this .That's their problem .And they should get what they want.

The State of California doesn't collect federal taxes. There is no mechanism for them to do this.

Tuur · Jun 7, 2025

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense. But California should take care of Californias , not Red States. Red states what this .That's their problem .And they should get what they want.

Heh., Right now, California is taking care of Californians about like George Washington's doctors took care of him: they bled him to death.

Be that as it may, such talk brings to mind the old nullification arguments that predated the American Civil War. That's the idea that a state has the right to nullify federal laws it deems to be unconstitutional. Such talk fell out of favor due to the American Civil War and I recall it being taught as being a Bad Thing. It's amusing to see its return.

Now, if California really thinks it's being harmed by remaining in the Union, it can attempt secession. Didn't work out so well the last time some states tried it. Just saying...

Fantine · Jun 7, 2025

Maria Billingsley said:
Trump started this whole thing by threatening to take away Federal funding from California. If Newsome withheld funding there would be nothing to take away. Additionally, California is considered a donor state. We gave approximately 800 Billion in 2024 to the Federal Government and received substantially less back into our state. I really wish those who dislike California would just be more reasonable with their accusations and appreciate our contributions to this country!

Trump has been denying FEMA assistance to states that voted for him with huge margins--Mississippi, Arkansas.

Arkansas is led by his former press secretary, and he just appointed a former Arkansas governor (her dad) to be ambassador to Israel--and yet, after months of begging and groveling, they were able to get help for individual homeowners but not for the infrastructure in their small towns with even smaller disposable income in their budgets.

We all know that whenever forest fires strike in California, FEMA needs to be there 100% to help them rebuild--so California might just have to withhold funds to cover repair costs from natural disasters. If Trump breaks his contract with the states, they should feel free to get what they need from withholding taxes.

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense. But California should take care of Californias , not Red States. Red states what this .That's their problem .And they should get what they want.

I agree only if California is cut off from all federal funding. They can create their own California version of Medicaid, Social Security, welfare entitlements, education, and disaster relief. Red states should do the same. Cut federal entitlements altogether and let the states take care of their own, just like how it used to be. The only caveat would be for military and federal highways because they are essential for national defense. California has numerous military bases, and national defense is a responsibility of the federal government. Perhaps, instead of a tax, the federal government could levy tariffs on California to offset the costs of maintaining all those military bases.

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
The State of California doesn't collect federal taxes. There is no mechanism for them to do this.

Exactly correct. I doubt California can do anything to prevent the IRS from seizing assets from Californians who fail to pay federal taxes.

The Barbarian · Jun 14, 2025

John G. said:
LOL! That amounts to secession.
Would California state troopers really want to tackle the US armed forces?

Trump's threat to illegally cut federal money to California merely points out that California would benefit by an end to transfers of money between Washington and California. Red states depend on the welfare they get from blue states.

ThatRobGuy · Jun 14, 2025

California's claim as "the biggest doner state" often skews certain things by over-simplifying a lot of aspects and are based on selectively chosen metrics to "prove a point".

Their sheer size is a contributor (they're actually not at the top when you consider things on a per-capita basis)

"Federal dollars paid out" includes older retirees receiving social security and Medicare, California has a much younger overall age demographic per capita. Only ~11% of California's population is over 65, in Florida it's about 24%.

Federal contracts comes into play as well, if a company based in a state bid on (and wins) a government contract, that contact amount goes into the "federal dollars received" column. (for example, Virginia and New Mexico have a large amount of federal contracts and federal installations, which counts towards their "federal dollars received" number)

Just as a simplistic example:

It costs the same amount of money, and requires the same number of park employees to sustain a 1,000 acre public park, regardless of the population density in radius surrounding it.

The Barbarian · Jun 14, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
California's claim as "the biggest doner state" often skews certain things by over-simplifying a lot of aspects and are based on selectively chosen metrics to "prove a point".

Their sheer size is a contributor (they're actually not at the top when you consider things on a per-capita basis)

The key metric is that they send more to Washington than they receive in federal money. So they are providing welfare for other states that don't pull their weight.

Learn about it here:

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/states-money-federal-government

California had the 4th highest disparity behind Washington state, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Fantine · Jun 14, 2025

Trump violates the law--California might as well show him they can give as good as they get. Teaching Trump a lesson about his bad behavior is long overdue, and California is just the state to give him what he deserves.

ThatRobGuy · Jun 15, 2025

The Barbarian said:
The key metric is that they send more to Washington than they receive in federal money. So they are providing welfare for other states that don't pull their weight.

But it's less about "pulling weight"...

Per the second part of my post, federal contracts, facilities, etc... all count toward the "federal dollars received"

Notice how states like New Mexico, Virginia, and Maryland are all at the other end of the spectrum? That's not because those states are "freeloading" or don't know how to manage a budget and need federal handouts.

It's because those states are home to some very "expensive to operate" federal facilities and infrastructure.

When you factor in "how many federal dollars are going to state XYZ", knowing how much of that is in the form of federal contracts and federal facilities changes the dynamic.

For example, if you look at Virginia:
$150 billion federal taxes paid
$180 billion federal funds received

Looks like they're a recipient state:
But, when you factor in that of that $180 billion, $106 billion is from Federal defense contracts and federal government installations, that changes that dynamic.

Remove that $106 billion from the equation, Virginia technically becomes a donor state.

The NY Times even highlighted that in a recent piece about Gavin's claim of "California pays Trumps bills"
It’s easy to use “donor states” to score political points, but it’s not necessarily useful beyond that. And aspects of it are flawed, arbitrary or counterintuitive.

If as part of the calculation you remove federal contracts and wages (you can make a fair argument they are payment for specific services and different from the taxes and entitlements that everyone participates in), then the "donor vs. recipient" relationships become less pronounced.

BCP1928 · Jun 15, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
But it's less about "pulling weight"...

Per the second part of my post, federal contracts, facilities, etc... all count toward the "federal dollars received"

Notice how states like New Mexico, Virginia, and Maryland are all at the other end of the spectrum? That's not because those states are "freeloading" or don't know how to manage a budget and need federal handouts.

It's because those states are home to some very "expensive to operate" federal facilities and infrastructure.

When you factor in "how many federal dollars are going to state XYZ", knowing how much of that is in the form of federal contracts and federal facilities changes the dynamic.

For example, if you look at Virginia:
$150 billion federal taxes paid
$180 billion federal funds received

Looks like they're a recipient state:
But, when you factor in that of that $180 billion, $106 billion is from Federal defense contracts and federal government installations, that changes that dynamic.

Remove that $106 billion from the equation, Virginia technically becomes a donor state.

The NY Times even highlighted that in a recent piece about Gavin's claim of "California pays Trumps bills"
It’s easy to use “donor states” to score political points, but it’s not necessarily useful beyond that. And aspects of it are flawed, arbitrary or counterintuitive.

If as part of the calculation you remove federal contracts and wages (you can make a fair argument they are payment for specific services and different from the taxes and entitlements that everyone participates in), then the "donor vs. recipient" relationships become less pronounced.

And what's this all really about? California wants to allow exceptions to the "no boys in girls' sports" order. LOL!

The Barbarian · Jun 15, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
But it's less about "pulling weight"...

Per the second part of my post, federal contracts, facilities, etc... all count toward the "federal dollars received"

Notice how states like New Mexico, Virginia, and Maryland are all at the other end of the spectrum? That's not because those states are "freeloading" or don't know how to manage a budget and need federal handouts.

They're profiting from the arrangement. They get more money in than than they send to Washington. California sends more money to Washington than they get back. A lot more. The welfare states are elsewhere.

ThatRobGuy said:
Looks like they're a recipient state:
But, when you factor in that of that $180 billion, $106 billion is from Federal defense contracts and federal government installations, that changes that dynamic.

Remove that $106 billion from the equation, Virginia technically becomes a donor state.

Sort of like "if you don't count some of the income, then it looks differently." Right. Of course that money benefits the state. That's why states want to have federal installations. Employers, you know.

Of course it's illegal for Trump to hold up federal funds because he's mad that Newsome made him look foolish. Just as it's illegal for Newsome to withhold funds to Washington in revenge. Bottom line? Trump has more to lose than Newsome. But he's too dumb to have realized it.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Jun 15, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
But it's less about "pulling weight"...

Per the second part of my post, federal contracts, facilities, etc... all count toward the "federal dollars received"

Notice how states like New Mexico, Virginia, and Maryland are all at the other end of the spectrum? That's not because those states are "freeloading" or don't know how to manage a budget and need federal handouts.

It's because those states are home to some very "expensive to operate" federal facilities and infrastructure.

When you factor in "how many federal dollars are going to state XYZ", knowing how much of that is in the form of federal contracts and federal facilities changes the dynamic.

For example, if you look at Virginia:
$150 billion federal taxes paid
$180 billion federal funds received

Looks like they're a recipient state:
But, when you factor in that of that $180 billion, $106 billion is from Federal defense contracts and federal government installations, that changes that dynamic.

Remove that $106 billion from the equation, Virginia technically becomes a donor state.

The NY Times even highlighted that in a recent piece about Gavin's claim of "California pays Trumps bills"
It’s easy to use “donor states” to score political points, but it’s not necessarily useful beyond that. And aspects of it are flawed, arbitrary or counterintuitive.

If as part of the calculation you remove federal contracts and wages (you can make a fair argument they are payment for specific services and different from the taxes and entitlements that everyone participates in), then the "donor vs. recipient" relationships become less pronounced.

This post is insightful but somewhat biased. It is true that Virginia and Maryland receive more federal funding than they contribute, largely due to the presence of numerous federal and defense institutions in these states.

But, you excluded California's federal and defense industry, skewing how much the state receives from the federal government. California has the largest number of federal employees in the USA and is the third largest in terms of US military presence.

When considering these factors, California remains the second-largest donor state in the United States.

Yarddog · Jun 15, 2025

John G. said:
LOL! That amounts to secession.
Would California state troopers really want to tackle the US armed forces?

He isn't really threatening to do it but suggested it in response to Trump threatening to cut off sending funds to California.

The Barbarian · Jun 15, 2025

Yarddog said:
He isn't really threatening to do it but suggested it in response to Trump threatening to cut off sending funds to California.

Yes. Newsom is merely using Trump's own stupidity to make a joke at his expense. Calculated to enrage him. And it worked.

ThatRobGuy · Jun 15, 2025

The Barbarian said:
They're profiting from the arrangement. They get more money in than than they send to Washington. California sends more money to Washington than they get back. A lot more. The welfare states are elsewhere.

Sort of like "if you don't count some of the income, then it looks differently." Right. Of course that money benefits the state. That's why states want to have federal installations. Employers, you know.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
This post is insightful but somewhat biased. It is true that Virginia and Maryland receive more federal funding than they contribute, largely due to the presence of numerous federal and defense institutions in these states.

But, you excluded California's federal and defense industry, skewing how much the state receives from the federal government. California has the largest number of federal employees in the USA and is the third largest in terms of US military presence.

When considering these factors, California remains the second-largest donor state in the United States.

That money they send to those federal facilities benefits the whole nation, they just happen to be located in certain states where it makes sense.

For instance, the major defense contractors are located in states like Maryland and Virginia, due to their close proximity to DC.

Military testing facilities are located in states where it's desert climate and with large areas of sparsely populated land. (like Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada)
-- because you can't test rockets and new military weaponry & vehicles in a densely populated New England state.

To be fair, some bias comes into play regarding the "donor state" conversation going in the other direction as well.

The fact that states like California became the home of the entertainment industry (back in 1920's), and New York became the seat of the financial sector (in the 19th century) -- therefore rich people moved there (and continued to do so) skews things as well.

So what you end up with is states (with disproportionate amounts of uber rich people, the ones who are actually paying most of those taxes -- as a residual effect of industry seating that happened over 100 years ago) coasting off of that, and then depicting it as if their "donor state" status is somehow evidence of their current form of governance being "the right way".

Gavin Newsom threatens to cut off California's federal taxes in Trump rebuke. Yes ,this needs to happiness. Red states talks their nonsense.

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Active Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Part of the IT crowd

Crabby Old White Guy

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Crabby Old White Guy

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads