Trump kills NYC congestion pricing

We're not talking about legal technicalities, we're talking about basic principals.

You are kind of side stepping another SGC principle in that less federal funding always equates to a smaller federal government. SGC's were very upset when a lower court forced taxpayers to continue funding USAID 2 billion dollars after it was exposed where all the funds were actually going. They would be equally upset if a lower district court were to order Trump to waste their taxes supporting a policy charging poor people to use the "royal" highways.

NY is a donor state so it doesn't need the federal government to subsidize anything, just let NY keep its own money and let them handle their own problems. That's what small federal government means.

If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.

This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.

Can Trump actually kill it?

Congestion pricing was approved under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program, which allows transportation agencies to implement tolling programs with the goal of decreasing congestion. The federal government is arguing that the city’s congestion-pricing program should not have qualified for approval under the VPPP because it doesn’t feature a toll-free option from drivers wanting to travel in that zone. Duffy’s letter also argues that the tolling program is primarily intended to raise revenue for the MTA rather than to decrease congestion, which he claims puts it at odds with the goals of the federal program.

But legal experts appear skeptical that the Trump administration has the authority to roll back the program after it was approved by the previous administration. Robert Glicksman, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, told the New York Times, “If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position. They can’t just say: ‘Sorry. We changed our mind.’ They have to explain why.”

“If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position.”

“To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide. ”

Yes, but what do legal experts know? What really matters is what people opining well outside their field of expertise think about matters of interstate commerce, federal subsidies, and governmental procedure and protocol.

You are kind of side stepping another SGC principle in that less federal funding always equates to a smaller federal government.

SGC's were very upset when a lower court forced taxpayers to continue funding USAID 2 billion dollars after it was exposed where all the funds were actually going.

If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.

“All good” might be an overstatement. More like it is the reality of the situation.

This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.

I will just copy/paste what I have already written earlier:

SGCs didn’t cry foul then, but you believe they should cry foul now?

A few actual SGCs have chimed in on this in this thread. What is your feedback on their views?

Yes, and that should bother you if you're a SGC. But what you're doing here is using it to make your point which is a basic failure of logic. Two wrongs don't make a right, so if you believe in small government you can't use the wrong of the federal government involving itself in the first place to justify the federal government involving itself afterward.

Why? I've already responded to all of that and you have nothing to say in response except to repeat your original point which has been addressed multiple times already.

Yet again, approving and denying a state program are two very different things. You are not inserting yourself into the process when you approve. You are asserting yourself inn the process when you deny. The latter deserves now scrutiny for obvious reasons.