Yeah. The truth is that before, local and state governments could effectively carve out their tax revenues out of the federal government's tax revenues, with limited impact on what their constituents would pay in total tax.

That ended with this tax cut.

So now these states have a choice : either their constituents are actually made to pay for the budgets of these governments (much more so than before, at least), or they limit their spending to the value of the SALT deduction.

What spin you want to put on this, feel free to do it, but let me give you some ideas.

"Federal government no longer to pay for California/Illinois/... pensions !"

"States now responsible for the money they spend"

Or, how about:

"Federal government imposes massive budget cuts on democratic governments !"

"Costs of Trump tax cut unilaterally imposed on state governments !"

They're all true, sort of.

For one, those states were already net positive contributors to the Federal budget - they gave more revenue than they received in benefits. Personally I don't mind kicking in more tax revenue to the commons when it's something that benefits everyone, but to fund corporate tax cuts on companies which already give too little as a whole, as well as other states which lower their taxes to give even more to those companies is counterproductive for the nation as a whole.