Agenda - Council - 09/13/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Congress ensures that the funds are spent according to its view of the `general Welfare.' "35° "The power to keep a watchful eye on expenditures ... is bound up with congressional authority to spend in the first place."351 Assertions that the amount of SLFRF funds are sufficiently large to be coercive are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning in NFIB, which distinguished between conditions placed on new federal funds and conditions placed on existing federal funds and not based on the size of funds.352 Further, the conditions placed on the use of SLFRF funds under the ARPA — both the eligible uses and additional limitations on deposits into pension funds and the offset provision — were well known to recipient governments prior to recipient governments requesting to receive SLFRF funds. Finally, the ARPA provides Treasury with the express authority "to issue such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out" section 602, which includes the offset provision. A number of commenters expressed concern regarding the burden associated with complying with the offset provision and the interim final rule. Similarly, other commenters argued that the framework provided in the interim final rule complicated implementation of the offset provision. Treasury took several steps to minimize burden for recipient governments in the interim final rule. For example, the interim final rule incorporates the types of information and modeling already used by states and territories in their own fiscal and budgeting processes. By incorporating existing budgeting processes and capabilities, states and territories will be able to assess and evaluate the relationship of tax and budget decisions to uses of SLFRF funds based on 35° National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius (NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 580 (2012) (plurality opinion); see, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-208 (1987); Gruver v. Louisiana Bd. of Supervisors for Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 959 F.3d 178, 183 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 901 (2020). For additional discussion of these issues, see, e.g., Brief Reply for Appellants, Ohio v. Yellen, No. 21-3787 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021). 351 Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 608 (2004). 352 The new federal funds offered by the Affordable Care Act totaled $100 billion per year. Even the dissenting Justices agreed that "Congress could have made just the new funding provided under the ACA contingent on acceptance of the terms of the Medicaid Expansion," although they disagreed with the majority about whether that funding condition was severable. NFIB at 687-688 (joint dissent). 321