Both body and Senate versions of The One Big Beautiful Bill Act include preventive provisions … more
As President Donald Trump and Congress Republicans seek to extend tax cuts of tax cuts and jobs (TCJA) as part of A great act of Beautiful Bill (OBBBA), How to deal with the state and local tax deduction ceiling (SALT) remains a key point of controversy. The home -approved version of the OBBBA increases 10,000 $ 10,000 per salt lid at home to $ 40,000, but the Senate’s proposal holds it to $ 10,000. The salt lid is not the only part of the OBBBA that has separated some Republicans.
Tcja salt opponents often accuse that they target blue states, which tend to have relatively higher tax burdens and are where most of the beneficiaries of the salt live. The same criticism, however, cannot be leveled in the OBBBA arrangement that prohibits states by regulating artificial intelligence (AI), a proposal that has been the subject of a criticism of GOP. Colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), For example, voted for OBBBA, but has since violated the AI state regulation of the bill.
“This must be stripped in the Senate,” GREENE wrote about the OBBA AI preference arrangement on June 6 position in X. “When the OBBB returns to the body for approval after the Senate changes, I will not vote with it.”
“We need to reduce federal power and maintain state power,” Greene added. “Not the reverse.” Neil Chilson, a former head of technologist at the Federal Committee of Commerce, responded to the emotion expressed by Greek on June 10 position:
“Many ‘conservatives’ seem desperate to have California (a state that has some difficulties that rule itself at the moment) regulate how the US is doing AI,” Chilson wrote, adding that China is thanking you.
The kind of progressive state regulation of the AI growth that GREENE is committed to defending is now on the Albany screen, where the New York Senate and the New York Senate have recently voted on the law on the increase, the legislation that will impose new regulations on companies, as large as small and small. This legislation is now in the office of Governor Kathy Hochul (D), waiting for her appreciation.
“The law on the increase would create a legal mine for New Yorkers who were trying to innovate by imposing vague, non -functional patterns that punish developers instead of bad actors,” a letter noted that Netchoice, a commercial association on the 17th of the 17th.
The bilateral contrast with the AI preference layout on OBBBA is not surprising. Although covering salt discounts disproportionately affects Blue State taxpayers, its federal preference by OBBBA of the AI regulation would have consequences for red and blue states. This is due to the fact that rulers and legislators in red states have proven just as sloping as their counterparts with blue states proposing the AI state.
Take Texas, which is usually considered one of the most reddish and conservative government states in the nation and for good reason. Texas, where Republicans control each state office and both of the legislator’s chambers, is one of the eight states that do not impose income tax. It is a state of law at work where the leading politicians for freedom, freedom and the limited government. It is also a state where Republican legislators seek to regulate AI.
At the end of 2024, Texas spokesman Giovanni Capriglione (R) introduced the Texas Responsible Law on AI Governance (Traiga), legislation to create a state regime at a state level that affects companies operating in the area of the c. After being introduced, Traiga quickly met with the contrast of free market organizations.
“Although well -meaning, this draft draft drafts imposes restrictive regulations and aggravating costs of compliance that are in danger of stifling the Texas Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector,” wrote a coalition of conservative organizations in a joint letter to Texas legislators. “Texas has a unique opportunity to be a leader in AI’s innovation, but Traiga’s approach threatens to undermine this potential. It would also be detrimental as a policy framework for other states or the federal government.”
Responding to the impulse, the representative Capriglione escalated the Traiga, redefined it and repeated it as the House Bill 149. The HB 149, which eventually passed both chambers, is closer in scope than the original version of the Traiga, with HB 149 focusing on the Government.
“According to the bill, government agencies should reveal to consumers when interacting with an AI system,” a transparency blog publication for Autonomy, decision -making or choice.
“Traiga also forbids the government from using AI to create ‘social scores’ for users and to use biometric data without consent,” the transparency coalition added. “Government services are also prohibited from distinguishing users on the basis of their political views, their political views, their political views, restriction of users ”.
In addition to Texas, the legislation seeking to regulate AI has been introduced to most state capitals, both in blue and red states. It is not just the voices of the free market and the leaders of the technology industry that express concerns about the adverse effects of a 50 state -of -the -art AI overlapping and contradictory regulations.
“I am just worried about every state that goes out and does its own thing, a quilt of the regulations, Connecticut is probably stricter and wider than most, which means in terms of the development of AI here,” said Governor Ned Lamont (D-Conn.). Shortly after Colorado legislators, AI’s bill in 2024 introduced the Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo) urged Congress to adopt the federal legislation to predict AI’s state regulation.
“There are better ways for states to deal with AI’s concerns from a heavy, top-down, intensity with a documentary approach,” writes Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA.), Explaining his decision to reject a bill for AI. “The role of the government in preserving AI practices must be the one that allows and enables the pioneers to create and develop, not one who stifles progress and places burdens on many Commonwealth business owners.”
Clinton-gingrich era reform could be a role model for the government’s approach to AI today
Supporters of the federal preference of state regulation AI, which includes many conservatives who support the promotion of most state policy decisions in states, believe that a patchwork of 50 separate state regulatory regimes for AI would put the US into disadvantages when it comes to the development of the AI. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and a former economist at the White House Administration and Budget, says there is a precedent for a Federal Moratorium for AI regulations. This previous is the 1998 Internet Tax LawApproved by a Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.
“This federal cessation of state taxes for internet access has helped supply the digital revolution,” Ginn writes. “AI is worth the same breathing room. If the moratorium or this is not the case, America is in danger of giving the future to countries such as China, where the Communist administration is directing resources rather than profits.”
These observations by Ginn, who served in the first Trump administration, sound similar to those recently delivered by a member of the second Trump administration. In a address to the AWS Public Sector Summit, David Sacks-Business Capital, Technologist and First White House AI Czar-signed state-of-the-art efforts to regulate AI as “fear”, adding that a 50 state-owned patch at Cradle ”.
“If we had followed this approach to the internet, if we had a basically a fear -based approach to regulation and passing hundreds or thousands of regulations, I don’t think the US would become the dominant country on the internet,” Sacks added, calling the internet “one of its jewelry”.
There is a bilateral agreement on the need for federal preference of AI state regulations and there is also a bilateral contrast with such a federal moratorium. However, the issue will be decided by Republicans at Capitol Hill. “Republicans have a pretty simple choice in AI,” register Zach Lilly, Deputy Director of State and Federal Affairs for Netchoice, noting that the options “follow Trump’s lead and use the majority of Congress to set a light touch approach or lose the moment and let California regulate it.”
