Democrats Launch Sneak Attack Against Conservative States

Today on Sekulow, Democrats launch a sneak attack against conservative states buried in the American rescue plan that will be voted out of the House, going to Biden's desk today. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. So buried into the 1.9 trillion dollar American rescue plan, which is no longer about just COVID anymore, is a provision which comes right out and says that if you, it explicitly bars states from cutting taxes.

Here's how it reads. States, quote, shall not use the funds to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue that results from a change in law, regulation, or administration interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax by providing a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise, or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase. So it's okay to do tax increases. In fact, you've got to keep those on track if you have any plan. And this goes through 2024, by the way. This covers way out.

It's not like for six months. So what it says is you can raise taxes however you'd like in your states, but if you accept any of these funds, which I think all states are going to have to do, whether they like this legislation or not because of the economic relief it provides its citizens, that you cannot lower taxes in your state during that time period. During that time period is through 2024. Now the federal government has put in the past these kind of restrictions on receiving federal funding. Some have survived in court, others have not. I think the best example of one that survived is the 21-year age to buy alcohol. It was challenged, and that was tied to the federal highway funds. And what the federal government argued and the administration then was that we did the numbers, we did the studies, and younger people, they're more likely to drive intoxicated, making the roads less safe for everyone, not just them.

And so it makes sense to tie a raised age to purchase alcohol to receive these highway funds if you want to. It didn't force states to receive them, and this bill doesn't force it either, but I can't imagine many states that can refuse any of this funding because they need it to some extent. And this is still talking about, again, that small percent that is for COVID relief, which is very popular nationwide, and then the other 75 percent, which has nothing to do with COVID relief.

That's a nice number. It could be the other 90 percent. But I want to go right to Harry Hudson here, because Harry, I think when people hear this, I want them to understand that their states are now going to be barred, and then they'll have to challenge in court from lowering taxes if they accept any of these funds for the next three years. I think that's true, subject to judicial interpretation, and I think the law right now is not necessarily clear, but the inference from my research suggests that there is indeed a basis for states to challenge the federal attempt to coerce and control the taxation power of the states. So there seems to be a conflict posed by this particular legislation between the state's interest in exercising its sovereign and essential ability to exercise its taxing power, and perhaps the federal government's interest in fostering economic and political unity, and perhaps surviving the coronavirus. My interpretation is, and my intuition is, that the courts, when they get a chance to rule on this, will rule against the federal government, but this bill gives huge power to an unelected individual, Janet Yellen, which I think is outrageous.

Think about that. A state may receive these funds and say, hey, you know what, because of this influx, if we move this tax a little bit down here, not massive tax cuts, it could even benefit our state more. But they're barred from even thinking about that kind of plan under what is going to pass today in the House and be signed by Joe Biden. We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. So I want to take your calls on this, 1-800-684-3110. And by the way, we're going to be ready to challenge this.

Let me go to Than Bennett, actually. Than, we're already working with members of Congress because we assume this is going to pass the House today. Let's give people a little timeline there, signed by President Biden, this $1.9 trillion spending bill. And we're going to start finding more and more provisions like this where, yes, it will be states that will have to take the lead, but members of Congress who will also object. And we'll be able to likely represent them in those court cases. I assume there will be red states that immediately start challenging this provision.

I know, for instance, that Than West Virginia is in the process of going to a no-income tax state. This would prevent them from moving forward, and they're almost there. They've got the votes. They're just working on the final piece of legislation to get it to the governor there to sign.

But if they take any of these funds, I would assume that plan gets thrown out the door. These are these small provisions that get added in that didn't get a lot of attention until people actually had time to read these giant pieces of legislation, which now, as Harry said, can be challenged in court. And we feel like you could be successful here, but it'll take states like maybe West Virginia, who was on track to do that, stepping up. But members of Congress will join us at the ACLJ to stand with those states who say, you know what, we can take these provisions and lower taxes and make life better for our citizens. Yeah, a couple of things here, Jordan. First of all, let me take a step back and just remind our listeners, this is what happens when you go the reconciliation route rather than taking the bipartisan approach that was available. Because when this last-minute change was put in by Senator Schumer, Jordan, the reason we're only finding out about it now is because he only had to clear it through his side.

He did not have to get Republican votes, and so you end up with changes like this that you find out after the bill is passed. But look, yeah, the sweeping ramifications of this, Jordan, are going to be breathtaking. You mentioned West Virginia and the income tax. But Jordan, think about all of the states that we've been working with on school choice measures. If they want to change their tax credit system to make sure that people can get tax credits for making contributions for scholarships, Jordan, that would be a significant change in their tax structure. And in theory, depending on how Janet Yellen interprets this, that could violate this provision and make them return funds under this bill.

So the number of provisions that could end up invoking this language are really breathtaking. We're going to be ready to challenge it. I can envision Republican states challenging it immediately or maybe moving forward with tax changes and then getting challenged themselves. But Jordan, I've already been reaching out to members of Congress. There are members of Congress that want to take this on. They're going to stand with us. And whether it's a state presenting the challenge or whether it's a state getting challenged, our goal is going to be to represent members of both the House and the Senate in making sure that states preserve the right to set their tax structure. Especially, Jordan, think about this. If they want to reduce the tax burden on their citizens, the federal government is going to come in and say, no, you can't do that.

It's pretty breathtaking. This is a state tax burden, too. The federal tax burden, that's up to Congress. But this is where the states have control.

And I think, Thanh, you brought up an interesting point. There are states that may already be in a process. Maybe tomorrow they're going to be passing something that lowers a tax here or a tax there. That they would be then subject to legal challenge by an administration. So it could be a state being challenged. It could be a state challenging. And we'll be ready, as we've already talked to members of Congress, we're ready to try and get this provision basically struck down as unconstitutional. Because it doesn't directly tie enough into the… The Supreme Court's got a pretty long precedent on when they can restrict states from taking action, Harry.

But the idea here is, you know, I think what is interesting, I would take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. I'm seeing a lot of the chats and people are saying, well, maybe states can get it through right now. But I mean, you're talking about right now, this bill is about to be signed into law by President Biden.

Absolutely. And we don't know what all of the provisions in the law indeed might be. So the law may apply, for instance, to any tax changes in 2021, which would then prevent or could prevent the state from changing its legislation. But I also want to note that the courts in general protect the government's power to tax by setting an extremely high threshold for striking down a tax as unconstitutional. And so I think the Supreme Court would be highly skeptical of the federal government's interference with the state's power. Keep in mind that we have a federal system that grants the state sovereign power in many arenas. And so I think this would be an area or domain of first impression for the United States Supreme Court. But my intuition is that the Supreme Court would be skeptical because if Congress can get away with this, Congress can effectively take over and eliminate states. So in other words, every state that then receives federal funds would become a tributary of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. And I think that is inconsistent with my understanding of the Constitution and it's inconsistent with the doctrine of federalism itself. And so I think the American people should stand up. Also, Congress people and governors and attorneys generals in various states should sue, but they should also go down two tracks. In other words, they should go ahead, challenge the provision, and they should consider enacting a reduction in their taxes to force the federal government to attempt to limit their funds. Frank has called in from Florida on Line 1. And folks, share this with your friends and family if you're watching Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, because a lot of people have not yet keyed in on this provision.

Only the Wall Street Journal picked up on it. And so we're trying to explain this to you now that this legislation, which is going to be voted on right now, signed by President Biden no later than tomorrow, which will bar your state from lowering any taxes up through 2024. So I mean, it bars them. That's what they're trying to do.

We believe it can be challenged in court, but that's what the law says as it stands right now. I want to go to Frank in Florida. Hey, Frank, you're on Sekulow. Thanks for joining us.

Alright, thank you for taking my call. I was listening to James Clyburn yesterday about the bill and the signing for the $1400 stimulus checks. Is there any update on how they're going to be applied or how to apply for them? So, Than, those checks should go out automatically, right, based off people's tax returns? That's right, Jordan. It's going to be very similar to the last time. If you got a check last time, you essentially won't have to do anything and just, you know, hypothetically, if that bill passes the House today, President Biden signs it tomorrow, the expectation is that checks would literally start going out the door in a couple of days and probably be mostly finished by the end of the month.

Jordan, I would say that's a testament to the system that was put in place. It's really ready to go. And just maybe to give one more layer of detail to people, I think, because there's confusion, it's tax season, right? Some people have filed 2020, some people haven't. Those refunds will go out on the most recent of your tax filings, whether it's 2019 or 2020. And if you're worried that you haven't filed your 2020 taxes yet and you had a reduction in income, you would get that stimulus check, Jordan. And when you filed your 2020 taxes, if you were eligible for more, you could then put that on your tax form and get it.

So either 2019 or 2020 makes you eligible. I love Jackie's question on Facebook. Why is the federal government overreaching the states' rights? I mean, Harry, the federal government, especially the Democrats, when they're in control, they're always looking at a way to overreach into states' rights, unless it's states' abilities to set their own voting rules.

Through H.R. 1, they're trying to override the states, you know, even there, they are trying to override the states' ability to take action. So they're always looking at how they take full power and they get rid of our system of government, which really leaves most of the power to the states. I mean, that's what, again, the 10th Amendment's about.

Is everything not here? It's state power, police power, taxing power, all these different things. They're always looking at ways to take that back.

Absolutely. And my intuition is that 90 percent of the Democratic Congress men and women have not even read the Constitution. They don't understand the 10th Amendment and they don't understand federalism. Also, I would suggest that they have engaged in willful blindness with respect to their understanding of the Constitution because they believe in the doctrine of living constitutionalism, which is you create it as you go in order to advance Democrat and progressive and left-wing policies. And so I think at the end of the day, they are quite willing.

If they can prevail with this particular provision in the law, then essentially the Democrats believe that their power will be unstoppable and they can basically eliminate states. Adam, we'll get back. We'll take your phone call. We've got a lot of lines are full right now, but they always open up.

1-800-684-3110. Let me tell you something. We're going to be on this, folks. As you said, we're already taking a proactive.

We talked about it with Thanh. Look at how we could aid in the challenges to this single provision, whether that is a state that's going to be sued by the Biden administration or that is going to actively sue the Biden administration over this restriction, which we believe is unconstitutional. And that's the kind of work we do at the ACLJ, fighting back to protect your rights and the idea of federalism and the Constitution in our country. We have a matching challenge right now throughout the entire month of March.

What does that mean? That means that whatever you're able to donate to the ACLJ is effectively doubled because we have a group of donors ready to match every donation that comes through the entire month of March. So you donate $20, that's like $40.

$50, that's like $100. So you really can double the impact of your donation to the ACLJ. It's a great time to support our work at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. Play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secula.

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Bernie Sanders is calling it the most progressive piece of legislation he's seen. We're going to play some sound from Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. With how much that says about the legislation, Bernie Sanders is praising it and so excited about it. What kind of legislation this really is that is going to be likely passing the House today and no later than tomorrow being signed by President Joe Biden. We've talked about this tax provision that was inserted in by Chuck Schumer that bans states that receive any of these funds from lowering taxes during the period of time they receive the funds. And by the way, this isn't like one year.

This goes out through 2024. So states that were looking at changes to their tax systems, if that included any tax decreases or tax cuts, they would be barred from doing so. Now we're going to be ready to challenge that alongside states and courts or support states who are challenged by the Biden administration and courts.

And we're going to be working with members of Congress to do that. But I did want to take your phone calls right away. People want to know a lot about what's going on here. Adam in California, Line 2. Adam, welcome to Secula.

Hey, good day. First of all, I just want to say that we support your show wholeheartedly and I think ACLU is a national treasure and I'm a very conservative person. But thinking about this pragmatically, I think the federal government, and believe me, I don't support the majority of what's in this bill, but they want to be pragmatic and they want to make sure that these are supplemental income, supplemental funds for the states, not substitutionary. In other words, they don't want to give the state a billion dollars and the state goes, oh, we can cut our taxes a billion dollars because we got it from the feds. Because at that point, that means the states really didn't need the funds from the federal government and they could have done it on their own anyway. Well, I mean, I think that, you know, that may be one of the problems is that some of these states can't even utilize the funds they already have gotten.

And then we've got hundreds of millions from the last time this was going, sitting right in Washington, D.C. that didn't go out. I mean, I get your point that you don't want to, it would be bad for the state to say, oh, we have this extra check coming in, so we're going to cut taxes and then where's that revenue going to be? I don't think that's, that's not what states are going to try to do, though, and that's not what this prohibition is about. This is a prohibition that favors the blue states that raise taxes and disfavors red states that look at ways to reduce taxes. We're not talking about necessarily massive tax reductions, but small reductions here, small reductions there, if they are getting an economic boost. Not to take away the entire supplement and say, okay, we can cut a billion in taxes now because we're getting a billion dollars in.

But then we can start, again, because we're getting this stimulus, we're getting this boost, we can make things a little bit easier on people and they'll spend even more money. Remember, they'll use more. And again, it would be up to the states to make that call, Harry. I think that they're going to be smart about it.

They're not going to say, we're going to cut out everything. And I think it's, again, it's just, it's not allowing the states to do what the state's job is, which is to make the best policy for their specific situation and their specific citizens. I think your analysis is spot on, but it's also important to keep in mind that essentially this bill is designed to prevent, for instance, the state of Indiana from profiting from the fact that the state of Illinois has engaged for the last 20 to 40 years in profligate union pensions and other spending programs. And so what the Democrats are afraid is that businesses will begin to flow to the state of Indiana or the state of Oklahoma, etc.

And so they don't want the state of Indiana or the state of Oklahoma to become more economically efficient. So what this bill is poised to do is to encourage economic inefficiency. It's also a payoff for labor unions. And so labor unions in so-called blue states have long sought pension benefits. And what has happened in many of those states is that many of the governors and the state's officials have said to the unions, we will give you these great pension benefits so long as you support us and drive the state toward bankruptcy. So I think this bill, based on how it's constructed, is perverse. It rewards economic inefficiency, it rewards waste, and it rewards labor union leaders as opposed to working women and men in the United States.

And I think that's poisonous, it's toxic, and it provides the wrong economic incentives. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, in the second half hour of the broadcast, there's legislation now pending to get rid of the IRS's lowest learner rule, which prevents the IRS from targeting groups through those be on the lookout lists. So they're also trying to dismantle all of the good work we did because there were groups that were brave enough to stand up to the IRS, take them to court, put in a rule at the IRS that said, we're not going to do this again, this mass targeting based off names of groups, and by the way, they've signed that decree, which is if they get caught doing this, you know, they're in serious trouble. So there is legislation trying to unleash the IRS again to be able to go after conservative groups.

We'll talk to them a bit about that as well. So you understand right now, it's an onslaught. When they see the ability to get a $1.9 trillion spending bill through on the slimmest of margins, and they can keep their majority together for right now, regardless of what happens in the next midterm election, they're going to try to do things like removing those barriers to the IRS from targeting conservatives. Back again, here we are back again. They know the power of conservative organizations, but that shouldn't matter.

If the groups are powerful because they raise funds legally through their donors, they should be targeted by the IRS and specified out through these bolo lists. Remember that word? It's coming back. So we're going to talk about that in the second half hour. That is legislation that's been introduced. There is a lot that we're going to have to fight back on here. I know this tax issue is big, and a lot of you are hanging on the line to talk about that. I'll take one more of the calls before we go into the next break. Let's go to Louette in Alabama on Line 6. Louette, welcome to Sekulow.

Thank you, and I enjoy your program and I support it very much. And just like California, I've got kind of the same idea of a question about the tax being raised. Of course, I don't agree that they should be able to do this, but when would a state ever lower our taxes? What are some examples of how they would... Lots of times, state legislatures are looking at, you know, they might give tax incentives to a new business that they want to attract to the state. Like maybe it's a new car plant.

Alabama's got those. So you might give a tax incentive there. So that would be included in here.

They use that word. Or a new deduction. It may be a property tax decrease because that area, the property value's gone down. So you don't need to be paying the same kind of taxes. Also, it could be at the income tax level. So, for instance, Louette, West Virginia right now is looking to become one of those states like Tennessee and Florida in Texas that's a no income tax state. That means they usually lower, they take out the state income tax, but they do raise some other taxes.

Sometimes it's sales taxes, sometimes it's property taxes in a mix. This would bar them from being the creative governance that they are intended to be. That is what states are intended to have the ability to do.

To be creative, to put their citizens in the best economic place. And this takes half of that out. It says, no, you can't move to a no income tax state even though you might be raising some other taxes because you'd be cutting out the income tax. So that just doesn't seem right. It seems unconstitutional. It seems like something, of course, we will be challenging in court. That's why we say the ACLJ now more than ever. Support our work with our matching challenge month. Double the impact your donation at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. I'm talking about freedom.

I'm talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome back to Sekulow.

I want to start right away. So we've got this provision. I mean, Than, I just want you to explain to people, so what was put in by Chuck Schumer here, it was done because of reconciliation, but it prevents states under this $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which is less than 9% actually has anything to do with COVID relief. That's a very small part of it, and people want that relief, and I understand why they need it, and it would be great if that was what all this bill was, but it's not. It's a giant, liberal, Bernie Sanders praises the most progressive ever piece of legislation to move forward. And part of that is because they're saying, you know, if you take any of these funds, can't lower any of your taxes, no deductions, no offshoot, no rebates, nothing if you take any of these funds. Yeah, and we're going to get a lot of this in these bills, Jordan. This is going to be the standard operating procedure for the left in Washington, D.C.

But I also just love our callers, Jordan. Both Adam and Louette, they basically touched on the two main concerns that I have with this provision. And just to speak to Adam's question for just a minute, Jordan, I would think the very first thing that you would want a state who has behaved responsibly, who has a budget that is not upside down, if they were to get funds under a COVID stimulus bill, I would think the first thing that you would want them to do is to pass that stimulus along to their citizens in the form of a tax cut.

I would think that you wouldn't want to mandate extra spending, and yet this provision would prohibit them from doing that. And then to Louette's question, you know, I think she asked the right question, well, when does this happen? When does state tax revenue actually decrease?

Because that's what the language says, Jordan. Anytime there's a tax revenue decrease. Well, it's not just when they cut your income tax. It's also when they adjust your tax credits or your tax incentives. And again, I'm going to circle back to the school choice issue, Jordan.

This is something that you have pushed for very hard. If we were to successfully convince states that they want to change their tax structure to actually incentivize individuals or businesses to actually give to scholarship funds, to give parents a choice where their kids go to school, and a state wants to give them a tax credit for that, Jordan, that would be an example of what this Schumer language would outlaw. It would make them not able to do that unless they were going to return those funds. Those are two terrible, terrible outcomes for this language. And the third thing I'll just mention really quickly, even if you disagree with me on both of those points, even if you think that a state gets this stimulus fund, they should be forced to spend it on spending measures.

Jordan, I would think that would only last through the pandemic. It's 2021 right now. This prohibition runs through 2024. This is nothing less than Washington, D.C. trying to control for the next four years tax policy across the states. And I'll just tell you, this is the tip of the iceberg.

If this kind of power is allowed to shift to Washington, D.C., Jordan, they're going to leverage it for something else next. Yeah, I mean, this is what makes me, listen to Senator Tim Scott on Fox News just talking about this piece of legislation. It's just shocking how little this has to do with COVID relief, which is the purpose the American people were sold on. I think that's why the support for it is so high, because that's what people think this is about.

It's not. One percent of this bill, Trey, one percent goes to vaccines. Less than 10 percent goes to COVID relief. In other words, as Bernie Sanders said it, this is the most progressive piece of legislation to pass the Senate since he's been a senator.

That says a lot when you make Bernie Sanders blush over progressive policies. I mean, Tim Scott's exactly right there. You're talking about less than one percent going to actual vaccines, less than 10 percent about COVID relief. That's how it was sold to the American people.

And I think, Harry, it's one of those situations where you have 50 seconds left. They were sold a bad deal and they're going to start finding out about it. And this prohibition on states being able to lower taxes up until 2024, if they touch any of these funds, it's just one of those examples.

Absolutely. And so, according to Nancy Pelosi, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill. But when we actually examine the bill, we will find that it is riven with deception all the way down. Alright, folks, we are continuing to take your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. We're going to get into this IRS issue as well. Because Congress, Democrats, congressional Democrats want to unleash the IRS to come after conservatives, yet again, we are going to talk about that.

No kidding here. This legislation put forward. So stay with us on Secular. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. But whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Alright, so I'm going to continue to take your calls on the $1.9 trillion spending bill, the American Rescue Act, which we believe will pass through the House today, and then be signed no later into law than tomorrow by President Biden. But I do want to alert you to what's going on with this IRS stand. We've got legislation being pushed by congressional liberal Democrats to basically revoke the gains we made in court against the IRS to prevent them from putting together things like be on the lookout list, bolo list, that would prevent the mass targeting of a specific kind of group, so conservative group, by looking at groups that have, oh, they've got liberty in their name, tea party in their name, whatever that may be going down the road, they want to remove, again, they want to re-empower the IRS under the Biden administration to go after conservative organizations without fear, because we've put the fear into that tax-exempt division, because they know they can get into serious trouble if we find out that they're doing it for partisan reasons, which most of the time, in the past, they were. Yeah, Jordan, this provision is hidden in a bill that we're going to be coming back to time and time again, and I'm absolutely convinced of it. HR1, the highest priority for Speaker Pelosi's House of Representatives.

Jordan, the bill as a whole essentially amounts to a D.C. takeover of state control of elections, and so many of the issues that we saw in the 2020 elections, it would actually enshrine them into federal law and then force other states who didn't use them in the 2020 election to use them going forward. But Jordan, this is just one example of one of the most egregious provisions in this bill, and like you said, it speaks so close to our heart, because we've seen this play out. We saw the tea party groups targeted by this bolo list that Lois Lerner created, a be-on-the-lookout list for certain types of groups based on certain viewpoints. They harassed, they targeted, and they kept on the sideline many of those groups. And so Jordan, essentially, we won, and Congress passed a prohibition after that scandal saying the IRS may not ever do this again.

They may never use things like a bolo list to target groups based on their viewpoint. This bill, Jordan, HR1, takes that prohibition in federal statute and repeals it. So it says, no, that prohibition that was passed after the scandal, it's stripped out of federal law, and the IRS, Jordan, would once again be free to develop these viewpoint discrimination policies and regulations and to target certain individuals.

And look, I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count on who would be targeted. It would be conservatives again. Every single time an HR1 would repeal that rule known as the Lois Lerner rule. I mean, so again, it's already there in place, and it's in place because the work of the American Center for Law and Justice and because those groups that we represented stood up to the IRS, stood up to the U.S. government and the Obama administration, and the wrong was right. But that's why you have to watch, they're always looking at ways to somehow repoliticize the IRS to use it as a political weapon, which is the worst of the worst of the U.S. government. It's like the FBI being used that way, or intelligence being used that way, or Department of Justice being used that way. The IRS hits at the core of all Americans because we all have to deal with it. Whether it's the individual income tax, your small business owner, etc., etc.

It's something that's part of all of our lives, and we should, you might not like paying taxes, it might not be pleasant, but you shouldn't have to fear that the IRS is coming after you or your organization because of its political views. And right now that's the law as it stands, but they want to get away, they want to do away with any of the safeguards we are able to put in place. So understand we're going to be watching that very carefully. Listen to what Senator Lee from Utah had to say about H.R. 1 as a whole.

Take a listen. I think I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words but, and, and the. Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. Now Than, this one is going to have a bit tougher time getting through, right? I mean this is, this cannot be used through reconciliation, right?

So this, or could it be? Well it can't technically, especially since you only get one crack at the reconciliation apple, so to speak, per year, and they're using that right now on COVID stimulus, but Jordan I want to issue a warning on that front. I know Joe Manchin has said in no, with no equivocation that he's against repeal of the filibuster, but Jordan in the last week he said, well I might be open to some reform, make it a lot more difficult to use. I don't trust him on this Jordan, so I think the United States Senate could change the rules and try to move it with 50 votes, but let me maybe just say this.

I so agree with Senator Lee's comment on this because these are difficult provisions to find. Look, the lowest learner rule that we talked about Jordan, here's what that legislative language says. Let me just read it and see if our listeners would know what this means when they say. That legislative language, it's section 4501 of the bill and it says, Section 122 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2021, Division E of Public Law 116-260 is hereby repealed. Jordan, everybody listening to us would read that and would not know what that means. So Mike Lee is correct when he says, even the buts and the ands and the thes in this bill are dangerous.

This isn't the last one we're going to find Jordan, but it's certainly a critical one. Right, I mean, so they don't tell you what that provision is. They just, they just put it out there and you've got to find it. Now we found it immediately because we're on the watch for this, but this is the kind of stuff they're putting in. And Joe Biden wants this legislation.

I mean, Harry, he's, he wants to, he's pushing this hard. This would be a second major legislative victory and yet another federal takeover of the state's ability to set election law, but also the protections we've gotten at the federal level to stop the targeting of Americans because of their political views. I mean, that's why it's so dangerous to me that these are massive pieces of legislation passing on the margins without people who, without groups like us, you know, ready to fight because we fought for those protections. This gets through with just saying, ah, repealed.

Absolutely. So the ACLJ has fought hard for election integrity and election security. HR 1 is designed to eliminate election integrity and election security unless the integrity and security favors Democrats. So basically if you look at the law carefully, it is designed to encourage fraud. The law is designed to encourage individuals who are not citizens and to allow them to vote. The law is designed to prevent adjudication of disputes over whether or not a voter has the right to vote in a particular election. And in addition to all of that, of course, it is designed to abrogate the constitutional rights of states to control and regulate their elections. So the law provides for an increase in absentee or mail-in votes. The law provides for increased access to mailboxes. And so theoretically, consistent with this law, I could put a mailbox outside of my house, ask people to vote, and if the mailbox is not monitored, I could go in and take out votes that I don't like. This makes no sense unless we live in a world of make-believe, and unfortunately that's where progressives live. Yeah, absolutely.

I'm just going to go by people who have been holding on now. Paul, interesting question out of Idaho on line 5. Hey Paul, welcome to Sekulow. Paul, are you there? Alright, looks like we'll go check back in with Paul and make sure he's got his phone on. Let's go to Judy in Colorado, line 2. Hey Judy.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. I am so frustrated today and every day. Every day we wake up, there's something new going on. And you know, you just talked about how they want to order the states that they can't lower their taxes and do all these things. Then why can't the states say, we want a portion of all these other things that you're giving away? You know, the arts programs and whatever, they should be accountable.

Humanities, I think $50 billion, $250 million to this, arts program and this and that, museums and whatever. Right, but here's what I think is happening, Than, is that they know that they may have a limited time and power. I mean, it could be over in 2022 with the midterm elections. And so often times we see, we saw it with Obamacare under President Obama. I think we're seeing it through this stimulus and HR1.

Those would be the two kind of main pieces of legislation. Of course, immigration gets tossed back because they love having that as a real political issue. So they do executive actions that don't actually stay in place, they can keep it as a political issue. But they will put it all on the line for this knowing that they may not have the power to get anything through in a couple years. And people usually really agree with this kind of legislation. It invigorates Republicans and it kind of depresses the Democrat vote because even some of them don't like these laws. Yeah, and I think they know that, Jordan.

It increases the likelihood they lose control of the chambers, but they're willing to try to throw everything against the wall anyway. And look, I think Judy's question actually illustrates this probably as well as just about anything. I mean, this is a bailout.

We'll just say it clearly, Jordan. It's a bailout for blue failed states who haven't been able to manage their budgets. And they want to prevent red states who have actually handled their budgets well from actually benefiting their people. Because what would happen, Jordan, if the red states take this bailout money and actually further reduce tax revenue? Guess what would happen?

People would leave blue states, they would move to red states, they would enjoy the lower tax threshold, and guess what would happen to those people's voting patterns? I think you can guess that. Now, folks, we're going to continue to take your phone calls. Final segment coming up.

Three lines are open. We'll get to Carol, Georgia, and Scott first. You can be on the show with us as well, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Remember, March is a matching challenge month, double the impact your donation, because a group of donors ready to match every donation. It comes into the ACLJ the month of March, and we need the ACLJ now more than ever. You know it, folks. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

Be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. But whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. My final segment, so I want to get through the calls we've got up right now. There's a lot of time with the IRS move with the, again, the $1.9 trillion. And we're going to get to all of that with your questions.

I want to start with Carol's and Oregon Online One. Carol, thanks for holding on. You're on Sekulow. Thanks for taking my call. I have a question about how to get the stimulus check that my husband didn't get. The first time? No, the second time. We got the first one, but we had to go to some website. And now here was the second one, the $600. And they sent mine in the mail, but he didn't get his.

And he went to the computer to try to get the number, and it was taken off of there. So we don't know what to do next. So Thanh has kind of researched this for you because we saw your call up about what steps you can take. So Thanh, I want to let you just kind of walk through for Carol what she can do now and her husband can do.

Sure. The first thing they can always do is check at IRS.gov. It sounds like Carol and her husband have already done that, so that's a good first start. But Jordan, I would really encourage them to consult with a tax professional because technically, and I don't want to get too into the weeds here, but technically all of these stimulus checks were actually refundable tax credits that were actually advanced to you. So they were sent to you in advance, and then you report them on your taxes, but then also take them out so you don't get taxed. That sounds very confusing, Jordan, but essentially what that means is if you did not get the check, your tax professional should be able to help you actually claim that when you file your taxes for 2020, or if you've already filed them for 2020, you could either amend it or file next year.

But if you did not get the check, you should be able to claim it on your taxes when you file this year. So there you go, Carol. I hope that answers the question, provides you some help and direction on where to go. Let's go back to the phones. This is an interesting one. Georgia in North Carolina on Line 3. Hey, Georgia, welcome to Sekulow. Thank you for taking my call.

You're on the air. Okay, my question is regarding the $10,200 that the federal government is going to take off for the unemployment income. Yep. And from what you're saying, it sounds like that they would prevent any state from also giving a discount on the taxes.

Well, so this is interesting, Harry. The federal government is giving relief on unemployment received, but if the state wanted to say, okay, we want to do that as well, that might be violating this provision. Absolutely. So one of the great things about this bill, and I mean that ironically, is it was poorly thought out. And so here you have a state saying, well, we're going to follow federal policy, and we are going to give a tax credit, for instance, on unemployment. But by doing so, they violate another provision in the bill, which theoretically at least prevents them from doing so. And so I think the caller has made a very important and brilliant observation that this change in the legislation makes no sense at the end of the day. I think at the end of the day, the state should be able to control its own taxing power.

But what the federal government is saying is if the state currently taxes these unemployment benefits, then you will have to pay a tax even though you can get a federal income tax credit that's inconsistent, and it makes no sense. So there you go. I mean, we're having callers point it out right away, and this is not taking experts to do that.

They're pointing out the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy of this legislation. I want to go to Scott in Missouri online for back to the IRS issue that we're going to have to be watching this legislation movie. Hey, Scott, welcome to Sekulow. Well, thank you very much, Jay.

A pleasure to be with you. I am the executive director of Veterans in Defense of Liberty, a national 501c4 advocacy group whose first claim to fame was being on Lois Lerner's attack list back in 2010. And that really is just an aside. We were part of the class action suit in California that of course won against the IRS. But the more important point that I wanted to bring up is we talk about state sovereignty and awful lot, but there's an issue that I have never heard discussed and I think is crucially important today particularly in our form of federalism. And the 14th amendment which says we are citizens of the United States and citizens of our respective state. Basically what that says is the state, the federal government has a right to protect the US citizens from states that have gone rogue. But in our case it's a lot more important that states also have the obligation to protect their citizens from a federal government.

Well that's why I think, Scott, what you're going to see. So you saw that, listen, you were able to fight back against the IRS and we fought back, we won because it was a violation of your constitutional rights. States are going to do that here. Now not every state, unfortunately the blue states have probably no problem with this. They don't like cutting taxes anyways.

They always just want to raise taxes. But I think what we see here, Thanh, is that we will be a vessel to assist in those states who want to fight back against this overreach by saying, hey, if you're going to take any of these funds, which all 50 states will through some way or another, whether it's going directly to their citizens, businesses or the state itself, through this American Rescue Plan, which is horrendous, that we're going to be there to help fight. Yeah, I think you're going to see two things, Jordan. First of all, I think you're going to see probably a state or multiple states challenge this outright. I think you'll probably see other states just ignore it and do what they know is within their purview to do and go ahead and make tax adjustments as is their right to do. And then they will wait to be challenged and they'll be more than happy to defend themselves in court. And either route there, Jordan, we're going to stand ready to defend those state actions and we're going to do it by getting federal officials from those states to make the point that it's actually their state that has the right to not comply with the provision that was passed on the federal level.

Most of those members, probably, Jordan, would have voted against it. But either way, it's a great way we can work with federal officials to defend the rights of states no matter how that challenge ends up working itself up. Let me try to take Paul's call back in on Line 6 in Idaho. Hey, Paul, welcome to Secular.

We've got about a minute here, but I wanted to get you back in. Yeah, obviously the Democrats, they're a captured state. And their regressive platform, can it be audited when the money is given to the Democrats or the states itself?

Can you find out somehow through auditing where the money went? Well, some states have state auditors or something like that. One of my good friends who is the elected statewide official in West Virginia, J.B. McCuskey, is the state auditor. And they built this very, they're the most, West Virginia is now the most transparent state in the country. So you can see how all the government money is used. But, of course, that's a state that's trending red. He's a Republican elected official statewide.

So, yes, in some states you will, but you're talking about these blue states where they don't like you seeing the money. I mean, I think it's going to be hairy to be state to state on whether or not they have those people in place and how easy it is to use the systems. In West Virginia, it's very easy to see.

They made it user friendly. In other states, they make it very not user friendly, I guess the best way to say it. I think your analysis is spot on. In blue states, they are expert at doing one thing, fudging the numbers. And so it will be extremely difficult for individual citizens to learn where the money actually went.

More likely than not, it went to union leaders and their pet projects. Alright, folks, so we're going to be watching that legislation about trying to reverse the lowest learner rule and fight back against the legislation, which is included in HR 1. This provision, which is just a quick Line 1 repeal of that, because we don't want to see those bolo lists back. We're going to fight back with the states on this tax issue. That's why we need the ACLJ now more than ever. We need your support. Double the impact, your donation or matching challenge month of March. Donate online at ACLJ.org. We are fighting for you and we'll talk to you tomorrow.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.