Budget

White House's New Budget Gimmick: Include Immigration Enforcement Spending in the Uncapped Budget for Foreign Wars

Incredibly, the White House is trying to pitch this chicanery as an exercise in fiscal responsibility. Congress shouldn't buy it.

|

Caro/Kruppa/Newscom

Endless wars create endless opportunities for fiscal recklessness, and the Trump administration is poised to take advantage.

Aiming to avoid a fight with congressional Democrats over spending more money on immigration enforcement, the Trump administration is now considering a plan that would classify the increase as part of the uncapped budget for America's foreign wars. Incredibly, the White House is trying to sell that gimmick as an exercise in fiscal responsibility.

Russ Vought, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, outlined the chicanery in a post published last week at Real Clear Politics. After sounding the alarm about America's growing national debt—which recently hit $22 trillion and is projected to keep growing for the foreseeable future—and correctly identifying Washington's "spending problem," Vought makes it clear that the Trump administration has no intention of allowing the coming debt crisis to stop the Pentagon's gravy train or the White House's crackdown on illegal immigration.

"This budget will reflect the administration's continued commitment to defending our nation and addressing threats to our national security, such as terrorists abroad and criminal illegal aliens running through our southern border," he writes. "Making America safe and secure is the administration's top priority and the president's budget will reflect that."

Instead, the White House will call for capping growth of domestic programs, and it will reiterate Trump's earlier demand that federal departments identify ways to cut 5 percent from their budgets.

Those caps and cuts are good ideas, but the Democrat-controlled House is unlikely to go along with a budget proposal that boosts spending for the military and for immigration enforcement while cutting other government services. In order to get Democrats on board with a massive hike in Pentagon spending last year, for example, congressional Republicans and Trump agreed to an equally large boost in spending for domestic programs—because bipartisanship means spending more money on everything.

The White House says it wants to avoid that outcome this year. So the Trump administration is prepared to introduce a big gimmick: shunting new spending into off-the-books accounts that aren't subject to the usual budget process, like the so-called "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget that funds the wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere.

"Additional needed defense resources will be designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, which are not subject to the spending caps," Vought writes.

It's bad enough to funnel more military spending through the OCO budget. (Congress should fight any attempt to put run-of-the-mill Pentagon budget items into the off-books account for America's post-9/11 wars.) It's even worse to run immigration enforcement spending through a special budget that's specifically meant for overseas military operations. The Mexican border is not a war zone, and it obviously is not overseas.

Vought admits that "fiscal conservatives may feel uncomfortable using OCO in this way," but he goes on to claim that "expanding the use of OCO funds remains the administration's only fiscally responsible option in meeting national security needs while avoiding yet another increase to the spending caps."

If fiscal conservatives are willing to buy the idea that fiscal responsibility means using obviously fraudulent gimmicks to spend more money in less transparent and less accountable ways, well, then they're not really fiscal conservatives.

"You cannot claim fiscal concern with one hand while using the other to sweep a hundred billion dollars under the rug," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan organization that advocates a balanced budget. "After years of debt-financed tax cuts and spending, it is time to stop the irresponsibility. Policymakers should not rely on hidden spending to pad the defense budget, nor repeat the unprecedented cap increases enacted in last year's Bipartisan Budget Act."

Raising the spending caps on both military and domestic programs last year could add an estimated $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. If Trump were serious about fiscal responsibility—and there is virtually no indication that he is—the White House would propose a budget that brings spending in line with revenue, not one that finds new ways to hide the spending hikes that the president desires.

Advertisement

NEXT: Feds Used a Secret Database to Track Journalists Covering the Migrant Caravan: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More Congressionally appropriated money to be used to fight off the hordes of invaders.

    Trump is really good at taking advantage of all the policies that are on the books and most Americans are not even aware of.

    It will be even funnier if Congress shuts all these money funnels that past Presidents have been authorized by Congress to use for discretionary spending.

    Either way…MAGA!

    1. I cannot wait until Boehm advocates getting Congress to cut the Executive Branch’s appropriated discretionary spending for Social Security, medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare.

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here =====?? http://www.payshd.com

    2. THINK ABOUT IT?..
      Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

      >>>>>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

  2. “Aiming to avoid a fight with congressional Democrats over spending more money on immigration enforcement, the Trump administration is now considering a plan that would classify the increase as part of the uncapped budget for America’s foreign wars.”

    Remember back when journalists were hyperventilating over Trump claiming that there might be (or were!) terrorist in the caravan? At the time, some of us pointed out that the AUMF (among other precedents) leaves those calls for the President to make, and that this claim might all be a setup for a court challenge. After all, if the court that ruled Trump’s travel ban EO was unconstitutional–not on the basis of its text but because of things Trump said during his campaign speeches? Then why shouldn’t the same court accept as evidence that Trump has claimed his immigration enforcement polices were always about fighting terrorism?

    You might think that there’s no evidence to suggest that there are any Al Qaeda coming across the border with immigrants, but the AUMF says it doesn’t matter what you think:

    “Section 2 ? Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001″

    —AUMF, September 14, 2001

    1. It doesn’t matter what you think about Al Qaeda coming across our border with Mexico. It doesn’t matter what I think about that claim either. It doesn’t matter what Congress thinks. It doesn’t matter what journalists think. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court thinks about the veracity of Al Qaeda coming across the border from Mexico!

      The only thing that matters–according to the statute–is what Donald Trump thinks. I even put it in bold for you.

      By the way, it was also a problem when the only thing that mattered was what Barack Obama thought–when he used the AUMF to justify everything from assassinating American citizens to violating the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans by way of the NSA.

      The solution has nothing to do with Trumpm and we are not one novel Court ruling away from fixing this problem. The ultimate solution is to either sunset or repeal the AUMF. Everything else is horseshit.

      1. The ultimate solution is to either sunset or repeal the AUMF. Everything else is horseshit.

        This 100%. I don’t think there’s necessarily a huge appetite for that though.

      2. Agreed, Ken. Time to repeal the AUMF.

      3. I could find you dozens statues with the language “determines”. The word isn’t license for making shit up.

        1. dozens of statutes

          1. The point isn’t the word “determines”.

            The point is that “he determines” is directed to the president specifically, and the point is that there isn’t any sunset clause or expiration date. In fact, there aren’t any limits to this power at all–except for the personal opinion of the president.

            That AUMF authorizes the president to do pretty much anything he wants anywhere in the world he wants to anyone he decides is somehow connected to Al Qaeda, and it authorizes the president to do that forever without end. If you think there are dozens of statutes that do that, then you’re wrong.

            Or maybe you can link to one that does those things? Go ahead. I dare you.

            The point is also that some of our worst abuses of both the separation of powers and our constitutional rights by the president over the past 20 years have been justified on the basis of that AUMF.

            1. You say “without end”. The AUMF says they have to be linked to the events of 11 Sept 2001. 100 years from now there may be nobody alive who could possibly have had anything to do with the attacks on that date, so the powers in the AUMF will expire by default.

    2. P.S. The AUMF says the truth doesn’t matter.

      1. Lefties cannot admit that they supported endless war language in the AUMF and now its being used against their interests.

        Thanks Trump for MAGA.

        1. So you support the AUMF then, LC?

          1. I support him using it to protect our sovereign border since a treasonous democrat lead House won’t do the correct thing.

            1. Treason, huh? Someone once said that elections have consequences. And then some other people mockingly said that to the original person after the elections swung their way. I guess we’ve come full circle again.

              Blind partisan loyalty sure is a grand thing, ain’t it?

              1. “Blind partisan loyalty sure is a grand thing, ain’t it?”

                I wouldn’t know.

                What I do know is to avoid the false equivalences you appear to find in some nonsensical need to be against both parties reflexivity, even when one is somewhat right and the other one is trying to establish a Soviet style system in my country.

                I definitely do know that.

            2. I support border security as much as the next guy, but, no, I don’t support giving the president an end around the enumerated powers of congress because congress won’t go along with his ideas about immigration.

              We can’t argue out of one side of our mouths that democracy (congress) is the proper purview for setting immigration policy because immigration isn’t a right, and then, out of the other side of our mouths, argue that the president should have a free hand to run an end around congress because congress’ ideas about immigration and enforcement suck.

              There is no constitutional and libertarian substitute for electing members of congress based on your ideas about immigration. People who think that they can vote for Democrats because they hate rednecks, or whatever, and then get something like a reasonable immigration policy need to wake the fuck up.

              1. Once we have have proper border security and enforcement of our laws, we can then turn to the task of improving our work VISA and immigration processes. If we don’t have all these illegals then we can definitely have more legal workers and immigrants.

                1. This remains a separation of powers issue.

                  In the past, I have opposed wars I would have supported–if only they had been properly declared by Congress.

                  I’m not about to suddenly start abandoning my principles just because they go against what I want in the short term.

                  I opposed Obama’s Paris Accord Treaty for a number of reasons–among them, that it wasn’t even submitted to the Senate for consideration, much less ratified.

                  I’m not about to suddenly pretend that same kind of unconstitutional shit is okay just because I like border security.

                  I opposed Obama’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Treaty for a number of reasons–among them, that it wasn’t even submitted to . . . you get the picture.

                  1. There are two things I prize highly about our Constitution, among them are freedom of religion as outlined in the First Amendment and the freedom to bear arms as outlines in the Second Amendment. When progressives come after those rights, and I say, “You can’t do that because it’s unconstitutional”, the fact that it’s unconstitutional doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean anything unless there are situations I can point to where I opposed the president doing something I wanted–only because it was unconstitutional.

                    When Donald Trump uses the AUMF or some other legal means to run around the clear intentions of the Constitution in regards to the separation of powers, yes, I called him out on it–even though I want border security. Now, when President LIz Warren decides to disarm us by citing her emergency powers, my opposition on the basis that it’s unconstitutional means something with the people who know me.

                    Anybody who only cares about the Constitution when the wind is blowing against them isn’t much of a principled constitutionalist. And just because the left is full of unprincipled shits doesn’t mean I have to be like them.

                    1. Well, Ken, that shit isn’t going away just because you maintain your principles in opposition.
                      The best, maybe only, chance to get rid of or alter emergency powers and the AUMF is if Trump uses them to build our wall. That might prompt Congress to actually do something, instead of just talking shit.
                      But if Trump is stopped without those things being taken care of?
                      What’s the point?
                      Principled opposition is great… unless your opponents have no principles beyond power.
                      We’ll still be subject to their whims, despite your principled opposition.

                    2. The principle I back here is that defense funds are to be used for defense. As CinC, Trump has the prerogative to use those funds as he sees fit. Congress does not, and should not, explicitly micromanage the defense budget.
                      Our shithead “representatives” voted for $57 billion in foreign aid, $10b of which will go to Honduras and Mexico, and some of which will go to build a wall in fn Jordan.
                      If Congress is going to take a stand to keep our borders insecure and send tax money to others instead of using it for our defense, they need to be accountable for it. Let them vote against the wall specifically, without all the other bs around it to hide behind.

                    3. “The best, maybe only, chance to get rid of or alter emergency powers and the AUMF is if Trump uses them to build our wall.”

                      That makes zero sense.

                      I opposed the AUMF when it came out in 2001 because it gave the president this blank check to do pretty much whatever he wants, and I’ve continued to do so every step of the way.

                      The way to get the AUMF sunseted or repealed is to persuade enough of my fellow Americans not to want it anymore. Bush and Obama both abusing it didn’t improve the situation, and Trump abusing it won’t improve anything about this situation either.

                    4. Good luck with that, Ken

                    5. If the worse ‘unconstitutional’ thing Trump does is use appropriated money to the DoD to defend the USA eith border security, then he truly is one of the greatest Presidents of all time.

                    6. Virtually all previous presidents before Trump have subverted the DoD to start foreign wars which have little to nothing to do with defending America. If Trump actually uses the funds from the DoD to actually defend America’s borders, then he will be the first president in generations to actually use the DoD to defend America.
                      Obama actually got a Nobel peace prize for making a speech about peace. after which he destroyed the rest of the M.E. which Bush left intact.
                      Now we have a president who is determined to put America on the path to peace, including re-uniting North and South Korea and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Syria. He is way more deserving of a peace prize than Obama ever was. The Nobel committee should publicly demand Obama hand his back for his actions in Libya and Syria. He turned out to be just as big a war hawk as Bush.

              2. Trump’s plan is to use mostly funds from the Pentagon to build the wall.

                Every year the Pentagon routinely and severely overpays for things due to corrupt deals with military contractors and there are always at least one or two incidents where they cannot account for sometimes as much as tens of millions of dollars! Add to the mix that the Pentagon funds all the immoral and unconstitutional wars America is in right now, I’d say using their tax money to build a wall that might mitigate a truly humanitarian crisis both sides have ignored for decades while enhancing our national sovereignty is a great idea & constitutional!

                1. Using corruption to justify running an end around the separation of powers is absurd.

                  Lynching cattle rustlers may be better for law abiding ranchers than doing nothing, but that’s hardly an excuse to ignore the constitutional rights of the accused.

                  Support for the Constitution is the only appropriate standard of patriotism. It’s principles (from the First and Second Amendments to the separation of powers) are the only thing that makes this country worth fighting for. Not only is the Constitution the thing that anchors our rights and liberties in law, the First and Second Amendments are also the thing that makes us American.

                  I’ll leave undermining its principles in the minds of average Americans, like a traitor, to the terrorists and communists. I’ll just keep calling out every president that violates those principles for failing to keep his or her oath and do their duty to defend them.

                  “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

                  —-Presidential Oath of Office

                  If Trump violated his oath, then that’s what he did–and I’m not about to pretend otherwise because he betrayed the oath to facilitate something I like.

                  1. The constitution also compels the executive to defend the states from invasion

              3. The problem here is that everyone in congress who is vocally against border security were for border security and building a wall on the southern border a few short years ago. This also includes Obama, Clinton and Pelosi. They are only against it now because they feel they must always take an opposing view to Trump and whatever Trump stands for. Just look at the way they criticized Trump when he called MS13 ‘animals’ They all knew he was talking about MS13 but they attempted to turn this into Trump calling ALL immigrants ‘animals’ just so they could oppose his statement. Everyone knew he was talking about MS13 who truly are a bunch of savage animals.
                You cannot get any more partisan than the bunch of hypocrites now running the Democrat party.
                Thankfully, the speeches made by Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton and Obama are all available on you tube for everyone who cares about their hypocrisy to view.

          2. I only support declarations of war. An enemy and a goal to end the war. Unfortunately DoW is not specified in the Constitution.

      2. Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit.

        1. You actually quote it to him, and this stupid asshole is so stupid he can’t even show you in the quote where it says otherwise?

          “a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”

          —-AUMF

          It says it all depends on what the president determines, and if you think it says that the president’s determination is somehow subject to the truth or anything else, then you’re wrong.

          And it doesn’t matter why you’re wrong.

          You could be wrong because you don’t want to believe that our Congress would vote for such a shitty piece of legislation, but that won’t make you any less wrong.

          1. Why do you assume that a majority of the Supreme Court would interpret it you way, rather than saying that clearly unreasonable Presidential determinations were not intended by Congress and hence not covered by AUMF? Is there no precedent for SCOTUS to interpret statutes differently from their precise, literal wording?

  3. By the time the US government has my money, it’s already too late. Bitching about what they do with it once they have it is as stupid as them bitching about what people do with their government handouts.

  4. Well, it does follow the logic of treating migration as an “INVASION”. If the migrants really are “invaders” then by that logic the US is in a de facto state of war with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.

    1. Sometimes we can win a de facto state of war by simply enforcing our immigration laws and making crossing our border more difficult.

      Thanks for playing today, Chemjeff.

    2. They are invading my pocket book, part of which is taken by force by the federal government to pay for the illegal alien freeloaders.

    3. Little Jeffy doesn’t like the idea of keeping pedophiles out of America. So many American children remain unraped. Jeffy doesn’t like that!

      1. You really are a tiresome bore, Shithead.
        Don’t you have some more progressives to threaten to kill?

        1. Tiresome? Doesn’t begin to cover it. We’re not going to stop, pedo boy.

          And I don’t threaten to kill anyone. I’m just telling you what is going to happen to bad people who won’t stop doing bad things. As I’m someone who tends to see a little farther down the road.

          Things don’t tend to end well for progtards, or pedos for that matter.

          1. “We”? You speak for all of your troll buddies?

            You’re a keyboard warrior, nothing more. You’re a loser who posts inflammatory bullshit because it’s the only way to keep your self-esteem above microscopic levels. If it wasn’t for your trolling, you would have nothing at all to keep you going in a day. You have an unhealthy fixation on violence and murder and it’s going to get you in trouble some day, if it hasn’t already.

            1. Poor chemjeff. So utterly defeated.

      2. Note to foreign readers: there has been a healthy dose of anti-papist sentiment in America for at least a couple of centuries now.

    4. Wars do not always have to be fought by bombing the crap out of other countries. Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico are not responsible for their citizens leaving the country. preventing them from doing so would be the same as building another Berlin wall. Being free to leave your country should be the fundamental right of every citizen of every country. However, America preventing the citizens of another country from illegally entering is not just the right of America but a fundamental responsibility. Notice I used the word illegally since anyone who really is an asylum seeker only has to present themselves at a legitimate point of entry and they will have their case looked at. If they really are at risk of being killed or jailed in their own country, they will not be refused asylum.
      This is not what is happening at the southern border. Thousands of immigrants are attempting to gain entry into America knowing that if they at least make it onto American soil and especially to a Sanctuary City, there is a very good chance they will be able to stay in America.
      There is a procedure for emigrating to America, and crossing the border illegally is not included in that procedure.

  5. Well, something else matters big time. China and Russia appear to be planning major military confrontations with the USA before the 2020 elections. Locations, South China Sea and Syria. Level, very high. Shooting war.

    Indication this dire jingoism has a grain of truth to it? The behavior of North Korea, which is China’s puppet at the dawn, middle, and end of the day. The way Moscow keeps rattling its nuclear rattles, like the upgraded AN-602 Tsar Bomba by far the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever conceived, now the basis of the Poseidon tsunami super weapon to drown Florida or Manhattan or maybe San Diego or Seattle.

    Unthinkable? What’s unthinkable, if Democrats start pulling a wounded president from office and threatening to replace him with leadership that, at the least, will be suspect of extreme squishiness?

    1. The one upside of any war with China is America completely voiding any debt owed to China.

      The Chinese do own a lot of U.S. debt — $1.123 trillion as of December 2018.

      1. I’m sure that will be great for our interest rates on all the new debt we have to issue.

        1. Kind of skipping the option that — if China “wins”; then they just bought all of us for $1.123 Trillion. And with China’s history; I imagine we’ll be answering and being beaten by Mr. wang-o-savie our new boss who authority is at a mandated worshiping level.

        2. The government sets the interest rate.

    2. (1) China and Russia are not planning major military confrontations with the US

      (2) There could be an “accident” / provocation in the South China Sea, because the two sides are actively provoking each other. Anything which happens will be limited. It’s in nobody’s interest otherwise.

      (3) North Korea is not China’s puppet, but a client state with a sizable stubborn independent streak. China’s overriding interest is the North’s stability, since they don’t want chaos on their border.

      (4) Russia’s obsession is being perceived as a major world power. All the latest super weapons, real or fantasy, are solely for that aim. Look at it from Putin’s perspective : To gain total political power and wealth he had to destroy every chance of his country become a normal functioning state, leaving Russia with a corrupt political process, a corrupt judiciary, and a corrupt third-world economy. What’s left for him to achieve after all those “accomplishments”…..?
      Simple : jingoism. Make Russia Great Again. Put it on a cap.

      (5) Who the hell could be more squishy than Donald freak’n Trump ?!?

      1. “To gain total political power and wealth he had to destroy every chance of his country become a normal functioning state, leaving Russia with a corrupt political process, a corrupt judiciary, and a corrupt third-world economy”

        Yea, the Soviet era and 90s Yeltsin rule were just peachy, but then Putin came along and ruined it all.
        C’mon.
        Russia is as Russia has always been, and Putin will be regarded alongside their great leaders – if less bloodthirsty than the rest.

        The rest of what you said isn’t bad

        1. The corruption under Yeltsin was fathered by chaos. Putin put an end to that, didn’t he? Political corruption was remade into his tool, as was the abuse of the judiciary and larceny & fraud endemic in the economic. Putin wove corruption into the heart, bones and sinews of the state; it was his decision as his means to power.

          You may see improvement in that; I see the exact opposite. They say Mussolini made the trains run on time. Well, Putin made corruption more efficient to his own personal ends. That’s just overflowing in greatness, right?

          So he’s finally secure on the top rung – looking down on a country which just lost its last chance of any foreseeable future to escape from dysfunction – what does he do? Well, a little bit of everything. Let’s assassinate a journalist, pump up some faux piety with grey-beard Orthodox priests, poise a lot shirtless, shoot down a Dutch airline, use chemical agents in another country, crank up that propaganda machine just like the good old Soviet days. In short, throw a lot of shit on the wall and see what sticks.

          Not seeing the Vision Thing in this list of gimmicks? Me neither. The leaders of China are strongmen too, but they are looking a hundred years into the future. Putin barely sees further than the next stunt.

          1. *Malaysian airline (en route from Amsterdam)

  6. >>>Endless wars create endless opportunities for fiscal recklessness, and the Trump administration is poised to take advantage.

    fiscal recklessness has been every day of our lives

  7. It’s so crazy that an administration would use defense funds to defend the country.
    Must be a trick

    1. This latest Trumpian gimmick is like the Unified Field Theory of right-wing hackery. Look at all the advantages for the Fox News universe :

      (1) Trump gets to fight a war, and against those brown-skinned people no less. On the negative side, it’s all made-up bullshit – like his record inauguration crowd, popular vote victory, or any other of the man’s thousands of lies. On the positive side, at least bone spurs won’t keep him from service this time.

      (2) Trump supporters get to carry their immigration hysteria to towering new heights of fantasy. We are fighting a war !!! Who needs made-up porn about damsels wrapped in duct tape when armies clash on the battlefield? Now your typical Trump-chump can pearl-clutch over invasions, counterattacks, and sieges.

      (3) Like every other Republican since Reagan, Trump has trashed the country’s finances. It’s been a certainty for almost forty years : The GOP makes the deficit much, much worse – sinking the nation down into an ocean of red ink. The Dems make the deficit much, much better, swimming back up towards the surface. This is plain simple truth based on plain simple numbers, but right-types are furious when forced to confront it. This crude gimmick will help them avoid the obvious – at least to a little degree…..

      1. Blah blah blah

      2. Grb, you are a moron’s moron, who couldn’t even lick the sweat off a dead man’s balls.

        1. Why would a dead body be sweating?

        2. Why would a dead body be sweating?

  8. In other words, the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security should not have to spend money securing our borders, because those budget lines were meant to pay for military conflicts in other countries.

  9. I don’t see how you can say Trump isn’t serious about spending cuts when he limits proposed spending increases to enumerated powers and doesn’t have the numbers in Congress to cut anything else.

  10. I’m with Rand Paul over Trump on this one — Cut the BLOODY SPENDING. Trumps 5% reduction is great; but it looses all root purpose if military sucks up that 5%. Unless there is evidence / purpose somewhere I’m missing.

    1. Considering Trump is attempting to end the bottomless pit of spending which Afghanistan has been for a generation, then surely if he uses the funds currently being spend on this seemingly endless war on building a border wall it would be a far better use of the DOD budget.
      Also, if the wall stops even a few thousand illegal immigrants crossing over the border every year, then the money spent will more than pay for itself, especially considering the border wall construction is a one off payment. If it cuts illegal immigration by a few hundred thousand in the first year alone, then it will have completely paid for itself in the first year and then some.

  11. The move is quite cunning and apropos. While mystical conservatives worry about “race suicide”, “a second language”, papist influence, plant leaves, undercutting confiscated contraband prices and other collectivist talking points, Cold War fossils recall that “illegal” was the term MI-6 applied to untraceable foreign agents within national borders. With the Libertarian Migration Plank in its gutted and vandalized condition, we have as much credibility on issues of border security as a “no-fence” Reason intern has at the Maginot-Siegfried line separating what our parents began calling Pakistan from what our Founders called India. The Don has out-maneuvered the sabotage and surrender movements, plain and simple.

  12. I’d like to be wrong on the recklessness level that may be surging through the “nationalist” militants in China and the Kremlin. However, remember last year, when U.S. Navy ships were colliding with everything afloat in the Far East? That wasn’t too impressive to potential foes.

    We have a very expensive military, with some really good, patriotic, dedicated people in it, but also a lot of people who the military has to do a LOT of remedial physical and academic rehab on to raise them from the American public school level up to world competitiveness levels.

    Also there is the factor that the USA is coming off very long, extremely expensive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria that were less than ragingly popular and not spectacular victories, or maybe even stable stalemates.

    Lastly we have America’s screwed-up social values situation, which will now demand that when the excrement really hits the fan, young females should be drafted, even for combat roles. However, this will outrage cultural conservatives, who have traditionally provided the backbone of our militaries guided by the quaint old fashioned idea that men in time of danger should go do the fighting and women should have babies and keep the home fires going.

    Not saying gals can’t fight. Saying drafting them into an androgynous army to die in muddy trenches will blow this country right up. Betcha.

    Yes, this is at odds with what progressives think, who are all smarter than a million years of evolution.

  13. spending 4.7 bil on the wall will save that much $ every year further reducing government’s grip on our hard earned money. an analogy would be to pay a smaller amount to fix the roof leak to prevent the larger expense amount to repair the interior damage. the duly elected president has certain powers and would be foolish to ignore them for the betterment of his country. MAGA.

    1. Ah, but you must get a permit to fix the leak!
      Anything else is unconstitutional, even if a specific duty of your constitution is to fix leaks!
      How dare you!

      1. What permit. Congress has already approved the military spending bill. Now, in complete contrast to every other president in history they are attempting to tell the president how to spend military funding. The executive branch is in control of military spending. God forbid that Trump directs military spend on actually defending America from the constant invasion of illegal immigrants crossing the border. It is called the ‘Department of Defence’, not the ‘Department of Foreign Wars’.
        Even the Dems are not attempting to deny that Trump is well within his rights to redirect DOD funds to the border wall. They are showboating for their base and any court case they bring against Trumps SOE will inevitably fail. The Dems talk endlessly about precedent when it comes to Roe versus Wade, but there is also years of precedent for presidents to decide exactly what constitutes a SOE. Obama certainly declared plenty. This is Trump’s first and already they are calling it unconstitutional whilst completely forgetting how many Obama called as president.

  14. Good for him. Congress is preschool for over aged children. President Trump is performing his Constitutional duty. He will school them.

  15. For goodness sake.

    Leaving a garrison in Afghanistan or Syria is just asininine.

    Either get in or leave. I know Trump does not know anything about history. I thought at least the military leadership knows very well.

    It never works. Dien Bien Phu, Kabul, Isandlwana, are you out of your minds? I read the news debating if it is 200 or 400 in Syria. As if that matters.

    I really wonder where the adults are.

  16. Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.