Trump Diverting $3.6 Billion from Military to Build Border Wall

Trump Diverting $3.6 Billion from Military to Build Border Wall

A worker stands next to a newly built section of the U.S.-Mexico border fence at Sunland Park, U.S. opposite the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez
REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez
By Michael Rainey

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.”

The $20 million ‘Boondoggle That Won’t Die’ Finally Gets Zapped

West Virginia
REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
By Eric Pianin

The House on Wednesday night voted 252 to 179 to wipe out a $20 million-a-year sop to Pennsylvania’s struggling anthracite coal industry that critics had tagged “the boondoggle that just won’t die. 

As The Fiscal Times reported earlier this week, the Defense Department has been required every year to ship 5,000 to 9,000 tons of coal mined from the rugged hills of Tamaqua in northeast Pennsylvania to the small town of Kaiserslauntern in southwestern Germany to be used by a local utility to heat a large U.S. military maintenance and repair installation.

The provision, for decades tucked away in the massive defense appropriations bill, was the remnant of a half-century old taxpayer rip-off that the Defense Department has been trying to get rid of for years. 

Related: The $20 Million Political Boondoggle That Just Won’t Die 

“For decades, the Department of Defense has urged Congress to remove this earmark and allow the use of cheaper fuel to power its military bases. Today we finally achieve that … saving taxpayers millions of dollars each year,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), who co-sponsored an amendment with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) to eliminate the benefit to the Pennsylvania coal industry. 

“The passage of this amendment is proof-positive that Republicans and Democrats can work together to cut wasteful spending while protecting the environment,” he added. “It’s about time we stopped burning dirty coal—and taxpayer dollars—to power this military base.”

End Game for the $20 Million 'Boondoggle That Won't Die'?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
By Eric Pianin

It has been called “the boondoggle that won’t die,” a decades’ old provision within the massive defense appropriations bill that requires a large U.S. Air Force and Army base 4,000 miles away in Germany to heat its facilities with anthracite coal mined in northeast Pennsylvania.

Although the utility at the military base in the small town of Kaiserslauntern in southwest Germany could readily purchase cheaper domestic coal or natural gas to fire its boilers, a legislative mandate dating back to the post-World War II era requires it to use 5,000 to 9,000 tons of Pennsylvania coal shipped overseas. Since 1972 each Department of Defense Appropriations Act has included an earmark requiring the Pentagon to purchase this coal.

 Related: The $20 Million Political Boondoggle That Just Won’t Die

Taxpayers for Common Sense and about a half dozen other government watchdog groups have railed against the provision, which costs about $20 million a year, as one of the worst examples of waste in the budget. And late on Wednesday the House was scheduled to consider an amendment to the fiscal 2016 defense appropriations bill to finally knock it out.

Two Californians -- Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman and Republican Rep. Tom McClintock – have co-sponsored an amendment that would finally eliminate the resilient sop to Pennsylvania’s long-withering coal industry.

“It’s about time we stopped burning dirty coal – and taxpayer dollars – to power this military base,” Huffman said in a statement.

4 Signs It’s a Sellers’ Market in Real Estate Right Now

iStockphoto
By Beth Braverman

It’s a great time to be a home seller.

After years of dealing with hesitant buyers and disappointing home values, those with homes on the market are enjoying the benefits of a true sellers’ market in most regions of the country.

Home prices in April increased nearly 7 percent from the previous year, according to CoreLogic. And a survey from Coldwell Banker released today list four reasons sellers are sitting prettier:

1. Homes are selling even faster than in the pre-recession years. More than a quarter (28 percent) of today’s sellers were able to sell their home in less than two weeks. By comparison, only 19 percent of homes sold in that time frame in 2006-2007. 

Related: 9 Real Estate Trends to Watch in 2015 

2. The bidding war is back. Nearly half (47 percent) of today’s sellers are reporting receiving multiple offers on their home, up from just 40 percent from 2010-2013.

3. Homes are selling for more than the list price. Those bidding wars are pushing the sales price of home past the asking price. Of today’s sellers surveyed, 27 percent said they had sold their home for more than the list price. During the recession, just 14 percent of sellers reported doing so.

4. Sellers no longer feel pressure to take the first offer received. Less than half of today’s sellers take the first offer they receive, down from nearly 60 percent during the recession and in the early years of the recovery.

Sick, Uninsured and Charged 10 Times the Cost of Hospital Care

iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

A pack of for-profit hospitals are taking too many liberties with their for-profit names. A new study by Health Affairs found 50 hospitals in the U.S. have markups over 10 times the actual cost of care. The data was found using 2012 Medicare cost reports.

At the top of the list is North Okaloosa Medical Center, located about an hour outside of Pensacola, Fla. The hospital was found to charge uninsured patients 12.6 times the actual cost of patient care. A typical hospital charges 3.4 times the cost of patient care.  

The largest numbers of the hospitals on the list – 20 – are in Florida. Of the 50, 49 are for-profit and 46 are owned by for-profit hospital systems. One for-profit hospital system, Community Health Systems, owns and operates 25 of the hospitals on the list. Hospital Corporation of America operates 14 others.

Related: If SCOTUS Rule Against Obamacare, Health Care Costs Will Soar

Uninsured individuals are commonly asked to pay the full amount, unaware they are being scammed. The markups can lead to personal bankruptcy or the avoidance of necessary medical attention.

"The main causes of these extremely high markups are a lack of price transparency and negotiating power by uninsured patients, out-of network patients, casualty and workers' compensation insurers and even in-network insurers," the study reads. "Federal and state policymakers need to recognize the extent of hospital markups and consider policy solutions to contain them." 

Most astounding of all, these markups are not illegal. Maryland and West Virginia are the only states with laws limiting hospital fees.

Researchers offered solutions in the study, including limitations on the charge-to-cost ratio, mandated price disclosure to regulate the markups or some form of all-payer rate setting. 

Those Record Job Openings Weren’t All for Burger Flippers

FILE PHOTO: Job seekers stand in a room of prospective employers at a career fair in New York City, October 24, 2012.   REUTERS/Mike Segar
Mike Segar
By Millie Dent

Not only did job openings increase to 5.4 million in April, the highest number from the Labor department in 15 years, but the quality of the jobs was impressive, too. The openings included positions in finance (+13,000) and in architectural and engineering services (+5,000).

Overall, service-sector job growth outpaced gains made last year. The majority of jobs were in professional business services (+63,000), leisure and hospitality (+57,000) and health care (+47,000). Employment in retail also edged up (+32,000), as well as in construction (+17,000). The biggest increase in vacancies was in the West, but businesses across the nation are looking for new hires.

Related: 10 Best Cities for Job Seekers

Mining, logging and oil and gas drilling all posted decreases. Employment in those industries increased by 41,000 in 2014, but the striking decline in prices for oil and other commodities has taken a toll, with employment dropping by 68,000 thus far.

In another reassuring sign, unemployment has fallen to 5.5% from 6.3% at this time last year.