Trump Diverting $3.6 Billion from Military to Build Border Wall
The Department of Defense has approved a plan to divert $3.6 billion to pay for the construction of parts of President Trump’s border wall, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday. The money will be shifted from more than 100 construction projects focused on upgrading military bases in the U.S. and overseas, which will be suspended until Congress provides additional funds.
In a letter addressed to Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Armed Services Committee, Esper said that in response to the national emergency declared by Trump earlier this year, he was approving work on 11 military construction projects “to support the use of armed forces” on the border with Mexico.
The $3.6 billion will fund about 175 miles of new and refurbished barriers (Esper’s letter does not use the term “wall”).
Esper described the projects, which include new and replacement barriers in San Diego, El Paso and Laredo, Texas, as “force multipliers” that, once completed, will allow the Pentagon to redeploy troops to high-traffic sections of the border that lack barriers. About 5,000 active duty and National Guard troops are currently deployed on the border.
Months in the making: Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border on February 15, 2019, came in the wake of a showdown with Congress over funding for the border wall. The president’s demand for $5.7 billion for the wall sparked a 35-day government shutdown, which ended when Trump reluctantly agreed to a deal that provided $1.375 billion for border security. By declaring a national emergency, Trump gave the Pentagon the legal authority to move billions of dollars around in its budget to address the purported crisis. Legal challenges to the emergency declaration are ongoing.
Conflict with lawmakers: Congress passed a resolution opposing the national emergency declaration in March, prompting Trump to issue the first veto of his presidency. Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee reiterated their opposition to Trump’s move Tuesday, saying in a letter, “As we have previously written, the decision to take funds from critical military construction projects is unjustified and will have lasting impacts on our military.”
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer was more forceful, saying in a statement, "It is abhorrent that the Trump Administration is choosing to defund 127 critical military construction projects all over the country … and on U.S. bases overseas to pay for an ineffective and expensive wall the Congress has refused to fund. This is a subversion of the will of the American people and their representatives. It is an attack on our military and its effectiveness to keep Americans safe. Moreover, it is a political ploy aimed at satisfying President Trump's base, to whom he falsely promised that Mexico would pay for the construction of an unnecessary wall, which taxpayers and our military are now being forced to fund at a cost of $3.6 billion.”
A group of 10 Democratic Senators said in a letter to Esper that they “are opposed to this decision and the damage it will cause to our military and the relationship between Congress and the Department of Defense.” They said they also “expect a full justification of how the decision to cancel was made for each project selected and why a border wall is more important to our national security and the well-being of our service members and their families than these projects.”
Politico’s John Bresnahan, Connor O'Brien and Marianne LeVine said the diversion will likely be unpopular with Republican lawmakers as well. Republican Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney expressed concerns Wednesday about funds being diverted from their home state of Utah. "Funding the border wall is an important priority, and the Executive Branch should use the appropriate channels in Congress, rather than divert already appropriated funding away from military construction projects and therefore undermining military readiness," Romney said.
The Pentagon released a list of construction projects that will be affected late on Wednesday (you can review a screenshot tweeted by NBC News’ Alex Moe here).
An $8 billion effort: In addition to the military construction funds and the money provided by Congress, the Trump administration is using $2.5 billion in drug interdiction money and $600 million in Treasury forfeiture funds to support the construction of barriers on the southern border, for a total of approximately $8 billion. (More on that here.)
The administration reportedly has characterized the suspended military construction projects as being delayed, but to be revived, those projects would require Congress approving new funding. House Democrats have vowed they won’t “backfill” the money.
The politics of the wall: Trump has reportedly been intensely focused on making progress on the border wall, amid news that virtually no new wall has been built during the first two and a half years of his presidency. Speaking to reporters at the White House Wednesday, Trump said that construction on the wall is moving ahead “rapidly” and that hundreds of miles will be “almost complete if not complete by the end of next year … just after the election.”
A Red-Hot Tesla Burns Rubber on Consumer Reports
The Tesla Model S P85D sedan just broke the Consumer Reports rating system.
By definition, a car can’t exceed a score of 100 on the road test. But after the P85D racked up a score of 103, Consumer Reports was forced to create a new benchmark for the system and overhaul the ratings process according to a news release. The new system caused the car to slip to a score of 100.
A few characteristics of the car that allowed it to perform better in the test than any other car ever before include its rapid acceleration ability (0 to 60 mph in 3.5 seconds), its remarkable energy-efficiency (the car gets the equivalent of 87 miles per gallon) and its better breaking and handling system than the former top-scoring standard Model S. Two years ago, the base model version of the Model S received a 99 out of 100, which at the time was the highest rating ever for a vehicle.
Related: Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer Than Ever
The report is careful to note that even with a perfect score, the Tesla isn’t a perfect car. Besides a price tag of $127,820, beyond the means of the average person and the most expensive car Consumer Reports has ever reviewed, the car is louder than the base Model S and isn’t as plush as other luxury vehicles.
In addition, a long drive might be problematic if there aren’t any nearby charging stations along the route due to the vehicle’s 200-plus mile range. The rating also doesn’t account for the Tesla’s reliability, but the Model S comes with average reliability, according to owner-survey responses.
Imperfections aside, the car received an enviable final assessment. “It’s a remarkable car that paves a new, unorthodox course, and it’s a powerful statement of American startup ingenuity,” the report reads.
North Dakota Police Can Now Legally Use Taser Drones
It’s a classic case of unintended consequences. A Republican lawmaker in North Dakota put forth legislation meant to prevent law enforcement officials from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance on private property without a warrant. It was transformed by fellow lawmakers into a bill allowing the police to mount Tasers, pepper spray, sound cannons and other “less-than-lethal” weapons on flying drones.
The legislation, House Bill 1328, was passed and signed into law earlier this year, but got little attention until this week, when a Daily Beast report pointed out the implications of the legislation: Law enforcement officers many miles away from suspects could have the authority to stun or otherwise incapacitate them.
Related: Ben Carson’s Idea for Controlling the Border – Military Drone Attacks
To be clear, the fact that something like this is technically legal doesn’t mean that state and local police departments will necessarily embrace the practice of remotely subduing suspects. Police officers are generally subject to local and departmental rules that can substantially limit what tactics are allowed.
The original version of the bill included language that would have barred law enforcement from mounting weapons of any kind on a drone: “A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound-based weapons,” it said.
Supporters of the state’s police union introduced an amendment to the bill that would allow less-than-lethal weapons to be mounted on drones, according to the Daily Beast’s Justin Glawe. The amended bill was ultimately passed and signed into law.
Related: Europe Faces Up to Flight Safety Threat Posed by Drones
State Rep. Rick Becker this spring voiced his dismay at the changes to the bill in a public hearing, saying, “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period.”
Drones have, of course, been weaponized for years — the strikes just haven’t been in the U.S. If North Dakota is taking the lead, however, that might be about to change.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times
- Trump Turns a Covetous Eye Toward Evangelical Voters
- Are Immigrants Really Taking American Jobs?
- Why the New Debt Ceiling Deadline Could Be Crucial
Why Big Salary Raises May Be Gone for Good
If you’re hoping for a big raise this year, prepare to be disappointed. Sure, you might be among the lucky people who get a healthy bump in salary, but a recent survey by professional services firm Towers Watson found that companies are planning pay raises of 3 percent on average for workers.
A new survey by human resources and management consultancy Aon Hewitt confirms that forecast: Even as the job market continues to improve, salaried employees can expect their base pay to increase 3 percent, or about a percentage point smaller than the raises employers were handing out 20 years ago.
Related: Full Employment Alone Won’t Solve Problem of Stagnating Wages
From 1996 through 2000, salaries went up by about 4.1 percent a year, according to Aon Hewitt data. From 2011 through 2015, annual raises have averaged about 2.8 percent. And even as we get further away from the recession, that downward shift appears to be permanent, as companies look to keep a lid on their fixed costs.
"The modest increases we've seen over the past 20 years are an indication that employers have changed their compensation strategies for good, and we shouldn't expect to see salary increases revert back to 4 percent or higher levels that were commonplace in the past," said Aon Hewitt’s Ken Abosch.
Related: Obama Moves Toward Executive Action on Overtime Pay
On the bright side, at least for some workers, employers are planning on doling out more money in the form of bonuses, cash awards and other so-called variable pay. Aon Hewitt’s survey found that workers will see their variable pay rise by 12.9 percent this year.
That shift favors higher-level white-collar workers, since companies have been cutting back on bonus and incentive pay for clerical or technical workers. In 2011, only 43 percent of companies gave bonuses or other cash incentives to those hourly workers eligible for overtime pay, down from 61 percent in 2009, according to data Aon Hewitt shared with The Washington Post. On the other hand, 93 percent of companies offer incentive programs to employees with a fixed salary.
As Abosch told the Post: “It’s the haves and the have nots.”
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- How a Biden-Warren Ticket Could Transform the Campaign
- The 10 Best States for Property Taxes
- Air Force Brushes off $27 Billion Accounting Error
Retirement? Bah! Let’s Spend it Now
Americans may be taking their #YOLO lifestyle a bit too far. You do only live once, after all, but most people also only get one shot at retirement.
More than a third of Americans say that they’re not saving for tomorrow because they are unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life today and would rather spend their money on things like dinners and vacations, according to a new study by Charles Schwab.
Maintaining their current lifestyle was the number one reason that people aren’t saving for retirement, followed by unexpected expenses (31 percent), covering monthly bills (31 percent), and paying off credit card debt (24 percent).
Even if they’re not prioritizing saving for retirement, they do want to work for a company that offers a retirement plan. Nine in 10 of those surveyed said that they would think twice about taking a job if the company did not offer a 401(k) plan, and 80 percent said they wouldn’t be confident in their ability to save for retirement without a 401(k) plan.
Related: Here are 7 Ways People Screw Up Their 401(k)s
Those who do have 401(k) plans said they don’t feel they’re getting enough guidance. Nearly half of those surveyed said that the materials explaining investment options are more confusing than those explaining health and medical benefits.
More than two-thirds of employees said that they want personalized investment counseling, but only 12 percent are currently getting professional advice. About half of those surveyed said that they would expect better performance if they used professional advice.
Nearly three-quarters of people said they’d rather have their 401(k) balance grow by 15 percent this year than lose 15 pounds. Maybe if they stopped eating dinners out, they could have both.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- The Worst States for Retirement in 2015
- Why a Market Crash Could be Good for Retirement Savers
- The 10 States with the Worst Roads
Diamond Prices Are Falling, but Don’t Rush to Buy an Engagement Ring
Diamond prices are getting slashed, but that doesn’t mean you should run out to the jewelry store right now.
De Beers, the world’s largest producer and distributor of diamonds by value, is cutting diamond prices by as much as 9 percent, according to Bloomberg.
Diamond prices have already slumped over the past year as demand has fallen, partly as a result of the economic slowdown in China, the second-biggest market for the precious stones.
Related: Can Gold Regain Its Shine?
De Beers, which is a unit of mining giant Anglo American and controls one-third of the global diamond market, initially tried to stabilize prices by ramping down its production. It had started the year with a production goal of 34 million carats, but has twice slashed the goal to a current 29 million to 31 million carats.
That hasn’t been enough to counterbalance sagging demand, so De Beers says it will invest in a holiday marketing campaign in an attempt to boost consumer interest. The campaign will be focused in the U.S. and China, the world’s two leading diamond markets, and will primarily target men buying diamond jewelry gifts for their partners.
In other words, you can expect to see a whole lot of diamond commercials soon — and in an interview with The Fiscal Times, one diamond industry expert predicted that the industry’s struggles will lead at least some retailers to cut prices this holiday season.
Related: Putin’s Spokesman Wears a Golden Skull Watch Worth $620K
The De Beers price cuts probably won’t have much effect on prices at high-end jewelry retailers such as Tiffany’s, though. These stores only purchase gems from a limited number of producers and since the diamonds they use are higher in value, their prices aren’t as vulnerable to market pressures as less valuable stones.
But it never hurts to look, right?
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Why You Should Ignore the Stock Market Sell-Off
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- The Best Things to Charge on Your Credit Card