A-score (31.8): This represents a significant constitutional challenge involving federalism and separation of powers. Rule_of_law scores 4 as withholding federal taxes would violate the Supremacy Clause and federal tax law. Separation scores 5 as this directly challenges the constitutional framework of federal-state relations and fiscal federalism established in Article I. The suggestion, even if not implemented, sets a dangerous precedent (1.2 multiplier) for state nullification of federal authority. Mechanism_modifier 1.15 for policy_change threatening constitutional structure. Scope_modifier 0.85 for single_state impact, though California's size amplifies effect. B-score (29.4): Extremely high media appeal (9) as state vs. federal confrontation with clear partisan dimensions. Strong outrage_bait (8) triggering both resistance narratives and constitutional concerns. Layer 2 shows strategic positioning: mismatch (7) between suggestion and legal reality, narrative_pivot (8) reframing budget disputes as resistance, pattern_match (7) fitting blue-state-resistance template. Intentionality (9) evident in public suggestion rather than quiet legal challenge, timed for maximum political impact. D-score: +2.4 (31.8-29.4). Both scores exceed 25 with delta under 10, qualifying as Mixed. This is simultaneously a real constitutional challenge to federal supremacy and a highly strategic political statement designed for symbolic resistance messaging.