Example collocations logo

Federal in sentence

1805 examples of Federal in a sentence

Moreover, at least one of his pre-crisis columns flatly contradicts his view today that current – or even higher – levels of federal debt carry no risk whatsoever.
In federal countries like India and Pakistan, even individual provinces refuse to consider giving water to their neighbors.
This is the best chance in 30 years for a federal settlement in Cyprus, and it may be the last.
But, as the short-term antics become more routine, the risks of long-term dysfunction become more apparent – a point underscored by the shutdown of the federal government.
Despite the federal government’s destructive impulses, the US economy is showing great resilience and looks set to become stronger.
Drawing on the success of the Tennessee Tech Program, he has also proposed a $200-million federal fund to expand community college programs based on their effectiveness, which is to be measured by employer partnerships, work-based learning opportunities, and student graduation and job placement rates.
And Hamilton needed Congress to approve the federal government’s assumption of the states’ debts, which at first seemed unlikely.
As a result, many states feared federal assumption would mean that their taxes would go to pay northern speculators or to retire the debt of big borrowers, like Massachusetts.
They, in turn, would secure the votes for the federal government to assume and repay the states’ defaulted debts.
But I have yet to meet a free-market conservative who would truly favor a new federal law requiring ambulances to leave accident victims by the side of the road unless they can show proof of insurance.
The large tax cut enacted at the end of 2017 will expand the US federal budget deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, pushing domestic saving even lower – an outcome that will lead to even wider trade deficits.
The model of a federal union that emerged from its history consists of a single currency managed by a federal agency; closely integrated markets for products, labor, and capital; a federal budget that partly, but automatically, offsets economic disturbances affecting individual states; a federal government that assumes responsibility for tackling other major risks, not least those emanating from the banking sector; and states that provide regional public goods but play virtually no role in macroeconomic stabilization.
First and foremost, Europe has not established a federal budget.
Unlike in the US, where federal public spending grew as a consequence of the creation of new expenditure programs throughout the twentieth century, public spending was already high at the national level when Europe began to integrate.
Significant federal spending programs could have emerged only from the transfer of existing national programs to the European level.
Because assistance does not rest on federal resources, but rather on the pooling of national resources, creditor states inevitably demand more power in exchange for providing more support to their neighbors.
In the US, the federal government acts as an overall shield against common risks and provides automatic, unconditional support to states in trouble; but, in the end, it does not come to the rescue of a defaulting state, nor does it take over its government.
All federations have experienced periods of tense relations between the federal and state governments.
The big question to which nobody has a clear answer is whether Europe is in the process of inventing a model of its own, or has only taken a detour from the inevitable choice between disaggregation and convergence on the standard federal template.
Another would be to transfer the insurance role to a federal institution accountable to the European parliament.
And perhaps that is why federal arrangements like those in Australia and Canada – essentially what Westminster grudgingly offered Scotland – could be their best option.
Surprisingly, very few such alliances exist, with many small countries – especially developing ones – cultivating close ties with “big brother” countries or immersing themselves in regional federal structures.
And he will have a hard time winning over his more cautious European counterparts, not least German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose room for maneuver was crimped by her party’s poor showing in last weekend’s federal election.
For example, a bill in the state legislature would offset the new federal tax law’s limit on state income- and property-tax deductions – a provision that will hit California hard because it has one of the highest tax rates in the country, and its residents own expensive homes.
Charitable contributions are deductible at the federal level only if the donor receives no more than incidental value for the contribution, which obviously wouldn’t be the case in this situation.
Effective next year, the new federal tax law also repeals the individual mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which imposes a fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.
Since declaring itself a “sanctuary city” in 1989, San Francisco has prohibited its police force from cooperating fully with federal immigration agents.
But, as of last year, the entire state has been declared a “sanctuary,” and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra now plans to fine employers that cooperate with federal immigration officials.
With tensions between federal and state law-enforcement agencies rising, many Californians are being put in the untenable position of paying state fines or violating federal laws.
States certainly have the legal authority to adopt policies that are at odds with federal policy.
BackNext