Trump wants to build the wall with Military funds

Here's an reasonable opinion on the subject:

Pentagon says using military budget to build border wall would be illegal

One of the more popular conspiracy theories to justify President's Trump signing of the spending bill full of the Democrats' priorities is that President Trump had a "secret plan" for building his border wall with Mexico. Why President Trump would need a secret plan to pay for his border wall when he has always maintained that Mexico will pay for it is unclear.

In any event, the plan is said to go as follows: President Trump is commander in chief. As such, he can order the military to do as he wishes, including building the wall.

President Trump, who repeatedly insisted during the 2016 campaign that Mexico would pay for a wall along the southern border, is privately pushing the U.S. military to fund construction of his signature project.

Trump has told advisers that he was spurned in a large spending bill last week when lawmakers appropriated only $1.6 billion for the border wall. He has suggested to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and congressional leaders that the Pentagon could fund the sprawling project, citing a "national security" risk.

But the military is not likely to fund the wall, according to White House and Defense Department officials.

The Pentagon has plenty of money, but reprogramming it for a wall would require votes in Congress that the president does not seem to have. Taking money from the 2018 budget for the wall would require an act of Congress, a senior Pentagon official said.

Many of you are thinking, why doesn't Trump simply order the Pentagon to do this? Trump can order this, but what he would end up with are mass resignations in the Department of Defense, the same kind of resignations he would generate in the Department of Justice if he tried to order the firing of the independent counsel.

But even if the Pentagon were on board with this, the wall still wouldn't get built. That's because a federal judge would stop the process before it begins, due to the patently unconstitutional nature of the act. The attempt to build the wall would be tied up in courts for the remainder of Trump's presidency (which, after having signed this spending bill and others like it last year, looks increasingly likely to be one term).
...

This is what we get for having a president who has no understanding of how governing, or the legislative process, works. President Trump thinks he can sign bills into law and then reinterpret them as he wills. When Obama did this, we called it a subversion of the Constitution. When Trump tries to do this, he is hailed as brilliant. But neither Obama nor Trump is a king – only president.


Actions have consequences. When Trump signed the spending bill, he committed to a set of results. It's a pity we don't have a president who understands how separation of powers and the legislative process work.

 

I'm sure they were talking to mid-level people or high-level people who are not specifically authorized to be spokespeople for the Pentagon.

Not really biased. It is just going off of common knowledge about government procurement and apparently confirming it with persons at the Pentagon.

As someone who has spent the last 16 years working pursuing, winning, and implementing government contracts (primarily Defense, Corps of Engineers, and the EPA), there is an extraordinary amount of oversight over procurement and spending. They don't just hand over a stack of cash and let the Department of Defense decide how to use it. It has to be itemized and monies allocated must be spent according to what was approved. To change allocations requires an act of Congress.

Here's an article explaining the breakdown of allocations.

So the previous article I posted was quite correct when it said,

This is what we get for having a president who has no understanding of how governing, or the legislative process, works. President Trump thinks he can sign bills into law and then reinterpret them as he wills. When Obama did this, we called it a subversion of the Constitution. When Trump tries to do this, he is hailed as brilliant. But neither Obama nor Trump is a king – only president.

Actions have consequences. When Trump signed the spending bill, he committed to a set of results. It's a pity we don't have a president who understands how separation of powers and the legislative process work.​

 

I gave you an article that explained the Defense Department breakdown. Do you claim it is false?

Furthermore, it is common sense for anyone who has had any experience working with governmental budgets that you can't use fund designated for one item and use it for another without approval from above - which would be Congress.

No, that's not logical at all.

But I'll play your game for a moment... What would be sufficient evidence for you?

I showed you the budget numbers and how funds are designated, because that was the standard of evidence for you less than four hours ago, but now you want to move the goal posts because you either (1) don't like the answer; (2) don't like hearing anything from me that contradicts your theories; or (3) you have a completely different standard of evidence than what you publicly claim.

 

You shouldn't.

It's not.

What will you accept as evidence?

You earlier claimed, "I think the answer depends on whether or not the military gets to decide exactly what to do with those funds.", but when I posted evidence that the budgeted funds are designated, you ignore it.

Unless you can give me a standard of evidence, then there is no point talking with you.

I already did, here and here.

It's your turn.

 

You have missed the point.

I made the assumption that you understood your own argument.

You said, "... if the funds are allocated to specific projects, specific planes, tanks, carriers, etc., I would think it's a problem"

Simply put, they are allocated. So -- using your own argument -- there is a problem.

Because it is common knowledge that you cannot do that. It is illegal for a government agency or a charity to take funds received for one thing and spend it on another without approval. Congress has to give approval.

And as you previously pointed out, you "think it's a problem."

I made no claim either way. That is irrelevant to the point and YOUR previously declared position.

I have, for the third time.

 

Indeed Calminian, a wall doesn't even need to be in our own nation to be an issue (howbeit indirect) of national defense.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

 

I'm sorry, I overestimated your knowledge. I assumed you understood the basics of American government and the ethics of handling public funds.

Do agencies have any discretion in how they use funds from appropriators?

Executive branch agencies must spend funds provided by Congress in the manner directed by Congress in the text of the appropriations bills. Appropriations bills often contain accompanying report language with additional directions, which are not legally binding but are generally followed by agencies. Congress often provides broad authority, which gives agencies more control in allocating spending. However, in some instances, Congress will provide for very narrow authority or can use funding limitation clauses to tell agencies what they cannot spend the money on. Agencies have some authority to reprogram funds between accounts after notifying (and in some cases getting approval from) the Appropriations Committees.

No you haven't, but don't let facts get in the way.

So that's the standard of evidence for you? If I can provide that for you, you will be satisfied?

You falsely accused me of making a claim. I have not made a claim either way. However, it is an irrelevant question if funds cannot be shifted from authorized items to a different project.

If Congress declares that it is, then they can appropriate, or reappropriate, funds to do it.

Because you keep shifting the goalposts. Nail down what your standard of evidence is first.

 

Not running from your questions, I have answered them. I'm just trying to get you to commit to a standard of evidence and all you are doing is making false claims, as is your pattern.

Do your own homework.

 

I do this for a living. MILCON funds are a specified pot of money that we congressionally appropriate on a project for project basis. The project has to stay within the scope of the approved DD1391(budgetary document for each project that tells us what is to be built, how much funding is available, why it is necessary and the history). Every penny of MILCON funds is assigned to a specific project DD1391. There is no big pot to be moved willly nilly. Using MILCON funds for non military construction projects is a statuatory violation and people can get into pretty serious trouble.

 

That is part of it but the bigger problem is that with the new spending bill, a lot of installations are now pulling these giant projects that they haven’t been able to get done off the shelf. A recent report from NAVSEA showed the decline of our big four shipyards. I’m seeing a lot of buzz about super projects rushing to prepare for execution. We are talking new dry docks, caisson upgrades etc. These projects are ready to go and just have to update a 1391 to get out for solicitation. If your saying the wall is going to be 10 billion then It goes without saying that a lot of MILCON projects are going to get axed in order to reprogram money for the wall. So what branches have to sacrifice their projects? I know the DoD is going to prioritize their installation refurbishments over the wall. Also the development of a project is lengthy. I don’t think the wall is going to be ready to go from planning to programming, design and ultimately construction for another three years. And that is after the back and forth over the legality of the wall gets played out. If Trump is a one term President, I don’t think it would be even ready for solicitation until he is out of office.