Trump wants to build the wall with Military funds

[Use of Time]

I think you makes good points, and that's the real issue here. It's not going to be an issue of illegality, but priority. Will we tolerate taking 10 billion out of the 700 billion military budget? It's less than 2%. Sure seems like that's a possibility.

The other key will be responsible spending on the part of the military. Trump has a knack for finding good deals. My guess is, he's going to haggling with military vendors, getting them to drop their prices.

Well hold on. I actually think legality is going to be the harder of the obstacles. The biggest part of MILCON funding is that it has to be for a DoD end user.

Second thing, the military budget is 700 billion but that is not all MILCON. There are several different colors of money used by the DoD. MILCON, O&M, Environmental Restoration, etc. The DoD MILCON budget is simply one of the many colors of money. It doesn’t mean we have 700 billion to spend on all things military.

Third, the POTUS doesn’t negotiate government procurements. That is handled by the Contracting Officer and Technical Lead of the respective command. Government negotiations like this aren’t about finding a deal, they are for finding a fair market price for the requisite supply or service. The cost estimates go line by line of what they think the job will cost and that is the basis of negotiation.

 

[Calminian]

Well hold on. I actually think legality is going to be the harder of the obstacles. The biggest part of MILCON funding is that it has to be for a DoD end user.

Second thing, the military budget is 700 billion but that is not all MILCON. There are several different colors of money used by the DoD. MILCON, O&M, Environmental Restoration, etc. The DoD MILCON budget is simply one of the many colors of money. It doesn’t mean we have 700 billion to spend on all things military.

Third, the POTUS doesn’t negotiate government procurements. That is handled by the Contracting Officer and Technical Lead of the respective command. Government negotiations like this aren’t about finding a deal, they are for finding a fair market price for the requisite supply or service. The cost estimates go line by line of what they think the job will cost and that is the basis of negotiation.

No one said it would be easy, but Trump gets things done. He can intervene and his intervention carries weight. He criticized the price of the F-35 and things happened.

Hard is not a problem, only impossible is a problem.

 

[Use of Time]

No one said it would be easy, but Trump gets things done. He can intervene and his intervention carries weight. He criticized the price of the F-35 and things happened.

Hard is not a problem, only impossible is a problem.

We have to get though feasible before we get to hard. Government procurement regulations just aren’t tossed aside. They are set up to avoid precisely this situation.

 

[InTheLight]

No sources listed. No names. No report on those that would support, just some unnamed sources who oppose. Obama holdovers, perhaps. Most logical conclusion: fake news.

You are the OP. Here is an excerpt from the article YOU cited:

President Donald Trump has privately said his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border should be funded through the United States military, The Washington Post reportedTuesday.

The president made the suggestion to "several advisors" and House Speaker Paul Ryan last week, the newspaper said, citing three people familiar with a meeting between Trump and Ryan. Trump thinks the Defense Department could bankroll the barrier, a key campaign proposal for the president, because immigration poses a national security risk, the Post reported.

A congressional source familiar with the matter told CNBC the Washington Post report is accurate.
---
So, no names. No sources. According to your definition it's fake news, right?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Calminian]

You are the OP. Here is an excerpt from the article YOU cited:

President Donald Trump has privately said his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border should be funded through the United States military, The Washington Post reportedTuesday.

The president made the suggestion to "several advisors" and House Speaker Paul Ryan last week, the newspaper said, citing three people familiar with a meeting between Trump and Ryan. Trump thinks the Defense Department could bankroll the barrier, a key campaign proposal for the president, because immigration poses a national security risk, the Post reported.

A congressional source familiar with the matter told CNBC the Washington Post report is accurate.
---
So, no names. No sources. According to your definition it's fake news, right?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

So Trump is not a source? LOL! Not sure how to converse with you anymore. Full Trump derangement syndrome. You don't even hide it anymore.

And just to burst your bubble even further, Trump has tweeted about this. I suppose that's fake news also.

But again, at least you're dropping the pretense.

 

[Calminian]

We have to get though feasible before we get to hard. Government procurement regulations just aren’t tossed aside. They are set up to avoid precisely this situation.

The argument is not, can you toss government regulations? The issue is, does a border wall fall within the scope of military spending? So far you guys (you, ITL, BB) are struggling to deny this. I think many have made good cases that is does.

 

[rsr]

A border wall falls within the scope of military spending if Congress says so. But it didn't.

 

[Calminian]

A border wall falls within the scope of military spending if Congress says so. But it didn't.

Hmmm. So Congress, not the military decides what is considered military. And Congress specifically said don't use this for the wall because the wall is not a military issue. Can you please specify where this was said?

But working with that assumption (assuming this is true), can you please tell us what Congress affirmed was military spending on this particularly bill?

 

[rsr]

Congress appropriated money to the military for dozens of purposes, all of which are spelled out — personnel, intelligence programs, construction, maintenance, weapons, etc. No mention of a wall or immigration enforcement.

Feel free to read the omnibus appropriations act. Then you'll have a better idea of what folks are saying about how authorization/appropriation works.

 

[Calminian]

Congress appropriated money to the military for dozens of purposes, all of which are spelled out — ......construction, maintenance.....

Bam! You seem to be making Trump's case. Walls don't just protect from illegal immigration. They also protect from malicious invaders including military combatants. In fact, that's the primary purpose of most national walls around the world.

 

[rsr]

Have it your way.

 

[Calminian]

just say'n

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As I understand it, the issue isn't is The Wall a military matter. The issue is where is the funding above the current funds appropriated for it by Congress going to come from. Funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose or program simply can't be re-programmed by the DoD on a presidential order.

 

[Calminian]

As I understand it, the issue isn't is The Wall a military matter. The issue is where is the funding above the current funds appropriated for it by Congress going to come from. Funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose or program simply can't be re-programmed by the DoD on a presidential order.

I agree. It would be virtually impossible for Trump to move funds from a designated item like a tank, spelled out in the bill from congress. And it may well be the case. I just haven't seen evidence of things being spelled out that way. Does't mean it's not there.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I agree. It would be virtually impossible for Trump to move funds from a designated item like a tank, spelled out in the bill from congress. And it may well be the case. I just haven't seen evidence of things being spelled out that way. Does't mean it's not there.

It's because you haven't looked. You have made Donald Trump your authority instead of facts, and you dismiss or attack everyone who tries to tell you differently.

Read the bill for yourself and see how funds are appropriated.

Regarding border fencing, this is the relevant portion:

Sec. 230. (a) Of the amount made available in this Act under ``U.S.
Customs and Border Protection--Procurement, Construction, and
Improvements'', $1,571,000,000 shall be available only as follows:
(1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary
fencing, all of which provides for cross-barrier visual situational
awareness, along the southwest border in the San Diego Sector;
(2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee
fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;
(3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the
southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;
(4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian
fencing along the southwest border;
(5) $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design; and
(6) $196,000,000 for acquisition and deployment of border
security technology.
(b) The amounts designated in subsection (a)(2) through (a)(4)
shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as
of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, (Public Law
115-31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that
prioritize agent safety.
(c) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act shall be
obligated for construction of a border barrier in the Santa Ana
National Wildlife Refuge.
Sec. 231. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives a risk-
based plan for improving security along the borders of the United
States, including the use of personnel, fencing, other forms of
tactical infrastructure, and technology, to include--
(1) A statement of goals, objectives, activities, and
milestones for the plan.
(2) A detailed implementation schedule for the plan with
estimates for the planned obligation of funds for fiscal years 2019
through 2027 that are linked to the milestone-based delivery of
specific--
(A) capabilities and services;
(B) mission benefits and outcomes;
(C) program management capabilities; and
(D) lifecycle cost estimates.
(3) A description of the manner in which specific projects
under the plan will enhance border security goals and objectives
and address the highest priority border security needs.
(4) An identification of the planned locations, quantities, and
types of resources, such as fencing, other physical barriers, or
other tactical infrastructure and technology, under the plan.
(5) A description of the methodology and analyses used to
select specific resources for deployment to particular locations
under the plan that includes--
(A) analyses of alternatives, including comparative costs
and benefits;
(B) an assessment of effects on communities and property
owners near areas of infrastructure deployment; and
(C) a description of other factors critical to the
decision-making process.
(6) An identification of staffing requirements under the plan,
including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailed
personnel, by activity.
(7) A description of performance metrics for the plan for
assessing and reporting on the contributions of border security
capabilities realized from current and future investments.
(8) A description of the status of the actions of the
Department of Homeland Security to address open recommendations by
the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability
Office relating to border security, including plans, schedules, and
associated milestones for fully addressing such recommendations.
(9) A plan to consult State and local elected officials on the
eminent domain and construction process relating to physical
barriers;
(10) An analysis, following consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, of the environmental impacts, including on wildlife, of the
construction and placement of physical barriers planned along the
Southwest border, including in the Santa Ana National Wildlife
Refuge; and
(11) Certifications by the Under Secretary of Homeland Security
for Management, that--
(A) the plan has been reviewed and approved in accordance
with an acquisition review management process that complies
with capital planning and investment control and review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget, including as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; and
(B) all activities under the plan comply with Federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices.
(b) The Secretary shall concurrently submit the plan required in
subsection (a) to the Comptroller General of the United States, who
shall evaluate the plan and report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the strengths and
weaknesses of such plan not later than 120 days after receiving such
plan.

 

[Calminian]

From what you've posted I see nothing definitive. But please expand and explain. Don't copout with more links. Make your case yourself.

(And BTW, my authority is God and Scripture)

 

[Baptist Believer]

From what you've posted I see nothing definitive.

I cannot give you anything definitive because you won't commit to a standard of evidence. You don't want to do that because you know you will be proven wrong.

But please expand and explain. Don't copout with more links. Make your case yourself.

Linking directly to the budget bill passed by Congress is hardly a "cop out." I can't post the thousands of pages of the bill in this forum, and you know that. Moreover, if I posted every relevant part of it, you would claim the true answer lies in a part of the bill I did not post.

My argument is simply that the omnibus bill shows how things are apportioned. I have posted a link to the bill itself so you can read whatever you want in it.

You refuse to do the bare minimum to discover what is true. That clearly means you simply have no respect for what it true and you simply want to repeat ignorance and/or deception.

You are willingly ignorant.

Undoubtably, you are going to claim that I am somehow insulting you and/or I am somehow "running from your questions" when EVERYONE here knows that I have served everything up to you on a platter and you refuse to engage with it.

(And BTW, my authority is God and Scripture)

And everyone here can claim that, but that's beside the point. Scripture says nothing about US government procurement, acts of Congress, the 2018 US Budget, and whether or not the President can use military funding to build a wall.

 

[Calminian]

I cannot give you anything definitive because you won't commit to a standard of evidence......

Oy! You really go to every extreme to avoid simple questions.

What I'm looking for is not the bill portion that deals with the border wall. Duh! I realize that money has been designated for specific areas and that that portion has all kinds of prohibitions written into it to prohibit Trump from building the wall with that money.

I'm looking for language in the military portion of the bill. Is there language similar to that in the fencing portion? Is there language that suggests it cannot be used for any type of border walls, construction etc.?

The 1.571 million for the fence is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Come on man, follow this conversation. You're kill'n me. I'm not even denying this kind of language is in the military portion of the bill, I just haven't seen it.

 

[Use of Time]

The argument is not, can you toss government regulations? The issue is, does a border wall fall within the scope of military spending? So far you guys (you, ITL, BB) are struggling to deny this. I think many have made good cases that is does.

I’m not struggling with a thing. I’ve been doing this for over a decade. Nobody has made a case for this. Trump had a tweet. Who’s going to man the wall? Homeland Security right. Not MILCON funding then.

I think with a little education on the subject you might realize why the the spending bill was a big blow to Republicans who want the wall.

 

[Calminian]

I’m not struggling with a thing. I’ve been doing this for over a decade. Nobody has made a case for this. Trump had a tweet. Who’s going to man the wall? Homeland Security right. Not MILCON funding the.

I think with a little education on the subject you might realize why the the spending bill was a big blow to Republicans who want the wall.

I think with a little biblical eduction, you'd flee liberalism.