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.”
McDonald’s Aims for a Classier Crowd with Lobster Rolls
As sales continue to fall, McDonald’s is desperately trying to reinvent itself, and its latest efforts seem to be aimed at a slightly classier crowd.
New England-area McDonald’s are going to start selling lobster rolls again after a 10-year hiatus, according to a report on Fox CT. No word yet on whether the old name McLobster will be revived.
The new lobster roll is reportedly made from 100 percent North Atlantic lobster, and includes mayonnaise, a bed of lettuce, and a small, toasted roll.
The meal has 290 calories and sells for $7.99.
McDonald’s introduced lobster rolls nationwide for the first time in 1993. Although the launch was a commercial disappointment, the rolls were still available seasonably in New England until 2005. Select McDonald’s restaurants in Canada also offer them for a limited time each year.
There were several reasons for the 1993 McLobster’s failure. Not only were customers wary of a “quality” seafood item served at a fast food chain, but the roll cost $5.99 (about $7.50 in 2015 dollars), a high price relative to the rest of menu.
The new lobster roll will also be expensive and doubts about the quality of its fast food continue to haunt the house that Ronald built. Given those barriers and the company’s track record, it seems unlikely that this particular crustacean-based sandwich is going to be driving a meaningful revival for McDonald’s any time soon.
Most Americans Are Happy at Work, but Feeling Burnt Out
They’re working longer days and clocking weekend hours, but nearly nine in 10 employees are still happy at work and motivated to rise in their organizations, according to a new report from Staples Advantage, the business-to-business arm of Staples, Inc.
The study was not all positive, however. Twenty percent of all workers surveyed and 25 percent of millennials said they expected to change jobs in the next year. Many said they feel chained to their desks during the workday, and 53 percent say they are feeling burnt out.
About half of employees polled said that they feel they can’t get up for a break at all, and just under half eat lunch at their desk.
Related: The One Quick Way to Boost Worker Productivity
“While many are still happy at work, we have to ask whether it’s because they’re truly inspired and motivated, or simply conditioned to the new reality?” Dan Schwabel, founder of WorkplaceTrends.com said in a statement. “Either way, employers need to adjust to win the war for talent and optimize productivity, engagement, and loyalty with employees.”
A quarter of employees say they are working after the standard workday has ended, and about 40 percent work at least one weekend per month. More than a third of workers say they put in those extra hours in order to finish work they didn’t have time to get to, and 22 percent say it’s because they want to get ahead for the next day.
The survey also looked at factors that erode employee productivity, with workers citing email overload and inefficient meetings as top factors. One if five workers said that they spend more than two hours per day in meetings.
Navy Paying Microsoft Millions to Maintain Obsolete Windows XP
Microsoft first introduced Windows XP in 2001. Last April Microsoft discontinued official support for the software. However, one major customer just signed a $9.1 million contract with the company in exchange for ongoing support of the system. The customer? The U.S. Navy.
Although the Navy has begun transitioning away from XP, it has about 100,000 workstations still using the software, including computers on ships, submarines, and other vessels. The entire contract could wind up costing the Navy nearly $31 million if it lasts until the June 8, 2017 deadline, according to CNN Money.
The Navy didn’t acknowledge the termination of the software until Vice Admiral Ted Branch, deputy chief information officer for the Navy, issued a memo in July 2014 requiring all PCs to transition to Windows 7 by April 30, 2015.
While Windows XP no longer receives regular security updates, Microsoft will supply the United States Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) with custom security fixes for its products. Without the updates, the Navy would be susceptible to security threats.
The Navy still operates numerous applications and programs that rely on older versions of Windows, according to Steven Davis, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego.
The Navy isn’t the only Microsoft customer that’s a little behind on the times. The Army signed a support agreement with Microsoft in April, and the IRS is also paying for custom support. In the corporate world, a staggering 44 percent of corporations still have the software installed on at least one PC.
This Match Is Going Public
An IPO for Those Who Think Love and Money Is a Match
The Match Group, home of the hugely popular dating apps and sites Tinder, Match, Chemistry, OurTime, and OkCupid, will issue an IPO in the fourth quarter. Mashable is calling it “the world’s flirtiest IPO.” Barry Diller’s InterActive Corp. (IAC), which owns the Match Group and a slew of other Internet brands, also appointed Joey Levin, formerly the CEO of IAC’s Search & Applications, CEO of IAC.
Back in 1995 when Match.com first debuted, people were skeptical of online dating, but today, dating apps and sites are big business. According to IBISWorld, dating sites are expected to bring in $1.17 billion in revenue this year, with apps totaling another $628.8 million. Online dating accounts for 48.7 percent of the revenue from U.S. dating services, but mobile dating apps such as Tinder are on the rise with 26.2 percent of the market.
Related: The Startup That Turned Down $30 Million from Mark Cuban
The largest dating service companies are the Match Group, eHarmony, Zoosk, Plenty of Fish, and Spark Networks. The Match Group leads the category, with nearly 22 percent share of the market. The Wall Street Journal reported the Match Group accounted for nearly one-third, or 29 percent, of IAC’s overall revenue in 2014. In the most recent quarter, the Match Group’s revenue was $239.2 million, or 30 percent of IAC’s revenue of $772.5 million.
With their portfolio of dating sites in more than 200 countries the Match Group is well positioned to market to the large generation of millennials worldwide. More than 7 million people sign up for their products every month.
Related: Love at First Byte: The Magic of Online Dating
As for what the Match Group’s ticker symbol might be on the stock exchange, the company’s lips are sealed. Many of the good ones are already taken. LOV belongs to rival Spark Networks, owner of JDate.com, ChristianMingle.com, and BlackSingles.com. DATE is the ticker symbol for Jiayuan, China’s largest dating site. LUV is taken by Southwest Airlines. Arrythmia Research Technology has HRT.
Apparently KISS is still available—if the Match Group gets lucky.
Why U.S. Productivity May Be Worse Than We Think
The new economy may be making it easier for people to work from home and in other non-office settings, but it isn’t necessarily making us more productive.
This week, the Bureau of Labor statistics released new data, which showed that Americans spent more time working last year than at any time in the survey’s 12-year history. However, employers aren’t paying workers for those additional hours worked, according to a new research note from Michael Feroli, Chief Economist at J.P. Morgan
That’s bad news for workers, who are doing additional work without earning any additional compensation, but it’s also bad news for the economy. The BLS measures productivity growth (output divided by hours worked) based on the number of hours reported by the employer.
Related: The Do’s and Don’t’s of Boosting Your Productivity
Even by that measure, productivity expanded just 0.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2014, compared to 2.1 percent per year from 2003 to 2009. But when looking at productivity growth based on hours worked from an employees’ perspective, productivity has remained totally flat since 2010, according to Feroli.
What’s behind the discrepancy? Feroli writes that it may have to do with the way we work in today’s economy. “Technology can tether one to the office every minute of the day and in every place, regardless of whether the employer pays for that degree of connectedness.”