The Conservative Argument AGAINST Trump’s Border Wall

by with 5 Comments FeaturedPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019… 

There is no political topic that captures the imagination of today’s voter like Trump’s proposed border wall.  This issue encapsulates national security, humanitarian, economic concerns, and it exploits the hyperpolarization of the rank and file members of both political parties. This issue is THE reason for the longest government shutdown in US history, and at the time of this writing, there is no compromise in sight. In this political stalemate, the only way to move the needle is to look deeper into the issue to see what the actual issue is, and if the taken positions are consistent with the fundamental principles of their ideology and party affiliation. As a lifelong Republican with an engineering background, after crunching the numbers and taking into perspective the number of diversions from bedrock conservative ideals, this border wall and the process it includes is the antithesis of sound conservative policy. The proposed wall is not fiscally responsible, infringes on private property rights through eminent domain, and does not significantly improve national security.

Using my professional background, and my background in engineering costs, I identified these significant expenses: 1. Property value of acquired land… 2. Legal fees for obtaining land through eminent domain… 3. Material costs for a 25 ft steel wall… 4. 2 ft foundation… 5. Labor costs… 6. Permitting fees… 7… Installation of service road for construction, maintenance, and transportation of border patrol vehicles and equipment… 8. Engineering fees, and… 9. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. While there are other expenses like water rights for farmers along the Rio Grande River, and potential litigation issues from a treaty with Mexico regarding these water rights, I am keeping my focus on these items because the process time and costs are significant.

  1. Property Values: Most land along the border is private property. I will assume 75% of the land is private property, a cost of $3,000 per acre (value is likely higher, but once land is condemned for seizure, the value drops significantly), and a 150 ft-wide right-of-way to hold the wall, service road, and any other facilities. Roadway right-of-way varies on size of the road. Typically, it is in the 60-80’ range (300+ for interstates and major highways), but since there will be utility and drainage installations in this right-of-way in lieu of additional easements, I am combining it into one. Total Cost = $75 billion. Total Time to Acquire = 12-18 months to notify property owner & 3-10 years to resolve through federal courts.
  2. Legal fees: This is roughly a third of the total property value based on other federal eminent domain cases. Total Cost = $25 billion. Time to Resolve = 3-10 years.
  3. Material Costs for 25 ft steel wall: Trump has signaled he is willing to compromise from concrete to steel. Assuming the wall height is 25 feet and a unit cost of $7/SF, the Total Cost = $2 billion. Time to Build = 125 miles/year or 14 years.
  4. Foundation Costs for a 2 ft foundation: Assuming a foundation height of 2 ft (typical for a structure of this height) and a unit cost of $10/SF, the Total Cost = $170 million. 
  5. Labor Costs: Labor costs tend to be 40-60% of total expense when combined with materials. Total Cost = $2 billion. 
  6. Permitting Fees: Permitting expenses tend to be 2-3% of total construction costs, depending on location. Permit fees within city limits could be significantly higher because fees are likely based on the total value of the property’s or structure’s value, but for this exercise, we will keep it to materials and labor costs. Total Cost = $100 million. 
  7. Service Road Installation: Service roadways will need to be installed to transport contractors and materials to install the wall. These roadways will be used by maintenance crews as well as transportation means for border patrol agents on duty. Typical costs for 2 lane roads is $3 million per mile. Total cost = $5 billion.
  8. Engineering Fees: typical 2.5-3% of total costs, including property acquisitions. Total cost = $3 billion. 
  9. Miscellaneous fees: On most engineering cost estimates, there is a 10% contingency item that covers additional engineering fees, change order requests, and any other expenses that are anticipated, but the final cost is not known. Total Cost = $10 billion.

When you include a 10% contingency fee to account for miscellaneous or unforeseen expenses, which is custom in most engineering cost estimates, the total cost for this wall, assuming a best-case scenario, is in the $120-125 billion range with a likely completion date in 2029. Trump’s request for $5.7 billion is a small down payment on a costly construction project.

The most expensive part of this endeavor will be the seizure of privately-owned lands through eminent domain. Will Hurd, a former CIA security officer and Congressman of the district with the longest stretch of border in the country, stated there are approximately 1,000 private property owners with land along the border in Texas alone. These properties have been owned by families for multiple generations that will be forcibly taken from them by the federal government at a rate the government arbitrarily sets against their wishes. Historically, eminent domain, particularly the excessive use of it, has been a galvanizing issue for Conservatives. Taking one’s property against their will, particularly after the 2005 Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court Case, prompted state legislatures in red states to pass legislation to reign in or outright prohibit the use of eminent domain in all or rare cases. The number of potential court cases that will occur could effectively shut down federal courts in District 5 (Texas), 9 (Arizona and California) and 10 (New Mexico).

The central argument made for the wall is the impact it will have on national security. This structure is supposed to make significant reductions in the number of illegal immigrants in our country. This week, the Center for Migration Studies released a study analyzing the numbers reported by the federal government and found that 62% of illegal immigrants are people who came here legally and overstayed their temporary or student visas. This has been the trend for the past seven years. Most illegal crossings occur at busy checkpoints or ports, not in isolated locations because there are not means of transportation available. Cartels have perfected the art of smuggling through these checkpoints and have made them a focus of their operations. They have also built numerous tunnels under the border that a wall would not impede. This means the people our national security departments are most concerned about will not be impacted by this wall. Creating the illusion of security is not the same as actual security.

This wall requires supporters to embrace a fiscally irresponsible purchase and revoke their bedrock defense of private property rights for a physical structure that has negligible benefit for national security. Wall supporters might have other, some might say sinister, reasons for supporting this issue, but it is not a conservative one.

This article was originally published on 22 January 2019.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

 

“Newspeak”

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

How do we create dialogue on different planes of reality?

I recently had a conversation with someone who stands on the far opposite end of the political spectrum from me. When I presented a verifiable fact, the type of fact that one could argue the reason for the content of the fact, but not the occurrence of the fact itself, I was told that it did not happen. “Fake news,” I was informed. I didn’t quite know what to say, but responded with a simple, “no, it’s not.” From there we argued whether or not the fact actually happened, and this person’s veracity made me question my truth. So, I re-verified what I knew to be fact. I felt vindicated, but I also felt cheated – that I had allowed what could have been a productive conversation between two people with different beliefs to turn into an argument over the very validity of a fact. Has political discourse become nothing more than petty arguments over what a fact is?

George Orwell, in his increasingly prescient novel 1984, said, “not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

We currently have a president who has told more than 10,000 non-truths in 2.5 years. But, he is an expert at denying what we can see with our own eyes. By repeating the lie over and over, we begin to question what the truth is and, over time, our truths become different realities. When I speak about something I know is truth, there are others that believe the opposite is true. One of us believes 2+2=5, and as a result, the other loses the freedom that comes from saying 2+2=4. And while one can say they have verifiable evidence that 2+2=4 (the mathematics community, etc.), the believer that 2+2=5 has a traditionally reliable source telling them they are correct, the President of the United States. The very existence of eternal reality is being questioned. Arguing if what we know beyond a reasonable doubt as fact is true destroys all meaningful dialogue on the important topics we need to discuss as a nation.

So, how do we make sense of this and return to an age when we could discuss things productively? I believe that dialogue is important, and our lack of conversations of substance has badly harmed our country.

I think there are several things we can do to begin curing this and healing.

First, we absolutely must elect a president that holds truth to the highest standard. Someone who is honest even when it’s unpopular and hasn’t shifted their goal posts throughout their career. We will never be able to re-discover integrity, on both sides of the aisle, if we don’t demand our elected leaders possess it.

Second, we must demand that social media give us an accurate depiction of the world and political landscape so we can escape our individual bubbles. Social media is designed as an echo chamber in which we are presented with information that furthers our beliefs and shows us what we already believe, not as an actual provider of information and truth.

Third, we continue to talk, at any cost. Maybe we have to schedule these talks with others that actually want to have dialogue on important topics. Maybe we need to have a computer nearby to verify data we disagree on the validity of. Maybe we begin the conversation by finding common ground and building from there. There are very few people who believe small children should be separated from their mother, even if they don’t believe the mother and child have a right to be in this country. Are we able to get to meaningful conversation by first agreeing that children should not be kept in jails away from their family?

Fourth, we have to always remember that we have been presented with separate facts, and we do not share the same truths. The bubbles we live in are not of our own making, but they are real and we won’t pierce through them by getting frustrated or angry. So, we understand that we need the dialogue, our realities are different, but we have common ground. Then we verify facts and we demand the way we receive information is based in reality and our elected leaders are committed to the truth. Who knows, it could work.

One thing is for sure, if we do nothing, it will be a bright cold day in April as the clocks strike thirteen. 

Similar Read: Critiquing the Candidates

NP

2019 State of the Union Address: Fact or Fiction

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Various news organizations and media outlets analyzed the SOTU transcript. 

According to the U.S. Constitution, The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

President Donald Trump gave this address to a polarized Congress on Feb. 5, 2019, after a 35-day partial government shutdown – the longest in U.S. history. Topics covered included his continued call for immigration reform to the strong economy to the record number of women serving in Congress. 

Starting off his agenda, Trump states he wants to “reduce the price of health care and prescription drugs, to create an immigration system that is safe, lawful, modern and secure, and to pursue a foreign policy that puts America’s interests first.” According to POLITICO, the Trump administration has indeed lowered those costs, particularly on prescription drug prices.

Immigration reporter Ted Hesson confirmed Trump’s claim that in two years he has launched an “unprecedented economic boom.” The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported the U.S. gross domestic product has increased 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018, but Hesson added former President Barack Obama surpassed that level four times during his presidency.

We get into a sticky situation when Trump says unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century. Politico staff counter this with links to articles that say in September, unemployment fell to 3.7 percent, the lowest it has been since December 1969. Last month, the unemployment rate was 4 percent.

Trump used his usual rhetoric towards illegal immigration from Mexico, “As we speak, large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States.” The Atlantic criticized President Trump for not devoting more time to speaking on Afghanistan, trade with China, or Venezuela. They reported he “devoted 463 words to immigration and 180 to the wall—a total of 643 words on a subject where he is bound to lose.”

Looming over the State of the Union address was the approaching Feb. 15 deadline to avoid another government shutdown. PBS Newshour reported Democrats have refused to accept Trump’s demands for a border wall, Republicans are increasingly unwilling to shut down the government, and the GOP does not support his plan to declare a national emergency if Congress won’t fund the wall. 

Trump continued by stating, “Year after year, countless Americans are murdered by criminal illegal aliens.” He brought Deborah Bissell, a woman whose parents were burglarized and shot to death in their home by “an illegal alien.” The couples granddaughter Heather and great-granddaughter Madison were also present. Politifact reported there is no quantitative proof specifically documenting how many U.S. citizens have been killed. This is because we do not have a national database on murders committed by immigrants in the country illegally. 

A striking display of applause from female Democrats dressed in white in solidarity for the suffrage movement came after Trump’s comment that women have filled 58% of the new jobs created in the last year. “You were not supposed to do that. Thank you very much,” Trump joked after the freshman congresswoman erupted in applause.

The internet more specifically erupted at the manner in which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi clapped. Pelosi, who remained seated for a majority of the address, rose to her feet and clapped at President Donald Trump’s call to end the “politics of revenge.”

Although the Washington Post said Pelosi’s clap wasn’t sarcastic, it still made for some fantastic memes amidst the 82-minute speech.

A detailed fact check of the entire State of the Union address can be found at POLITICO.

SOTU Reactions… From the Left, Center, and Right

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The president delivered his State of the Union speech last night (2/5/19) under a different set of circumstances… with a new speaker of the House in Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic-led House of Representatives, not to forget a government shutdown looming, all eyes were on Trump. The fear of socialism, immigration, and the border wall were just a few of the many topics he spoke about.

We asked a few of our contributors to weigh in and this is what they had to say…

“In regards to the State of the Union address, I had a hard time deciphering if it was truly the annual update on the process of our Nation or a cameo-filled tribute to the President by the President, flashing all the cool things he has done. One thing I will say is the President has improved his cadence while speaking, as I thankfully didn’t cringe during the entire speech. He hid his usual brash outbursts; however, his viewpoints, particularly on the issues of the Southern border and international relations, were not the most unifying. I found it particularly offensive that he did not address, or better yet THANK, all the federal employees and contractors who worked for 30+ days without getting paid. I pray for the sake of our Nation that the President and Congress come to a middle ground so we don’t have a second government shutdown.” – Left Healthcare Professional 

“Listening to the SOTU left me angry and confused.  It felt like a lot of fluff about unity and being morally correct in the same speech he demonized immigrants.  Once again #45 finds way to instill fear instead of understanding just in an effort to get his way. I would have loved to hear about a real threat to America, such as gun control, our crippling education system, immigration reform, and police brutality.  But none of that was mentioned, just another way to push his agenda of fear.”  – Center Single Mom 

“It was much less divisive than anything we have seen from DC in months. The president remains at odds from the House, but undoubtedly he’s going to get a bounce off the floor he’s been on since January. I don’t know that it changes much in the long-term. The wall is coming – and with it will be the court challenges of what’s pretty certain to be an executive action. The Mueller probe will likely bring a House effort against the president no matter what the findings, and polarization is likely to get more poignant rather than less. But for now, the president has some breathing room, and there is still a lot left of his agenda that’s out there to capture. ” – Right Army Veteran   

Perspectives are important, from the Left, Center, and Right. We should not focus on Trump’s approval rating, which will get an inevitable bump similar to most presidents after they rally the country in their SOTU speech. Instead, we should focus on the citizens who are impacted by his leadership and the gridlock in Washington.

Do you agree with our perspectives?

The Delicate Art of Compromise

by with 4 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

There are numerous parallels between the USA and Switzerland, a small country niched in the centre of the European continent. Both rely on federalism, both had to fight to gain or preserve their independence, and both have a huge number of weapons in circulation among the civil population. However, this is pretty much all there is to compare. Over the last couple of years, it has become obvious there is one characteristic these two nations do not share, and this is the art of compromise.

If Swiss citizens are allowed to keep their armed service rifle at home, it is strictly forbidden to own matching ammunition. Permits are delivered according to strict rules and security checks. Over the last 18 years, there have been very few mass shootings, resulting in less than 20 victims. However, army weapons tend to be used in suicides and when killing happens within the family or private circle. Swiss citizens rely very little on weapons when it comes to their own protection, but rather on private alarm systems and quick police intervention.

This peaceful approach to safety and crime is probably best mirrored in the political system and traditions of Switzerland. The seven members of the Conseil Fédéral (Federal Council) are elected by their party and each year, one of them is elected President. The major parties are usually represented according to a stable blend of political affiliation hence ensuring a balanced government. The Chambers are similarly constituted. Whereas the American campaign for presidency showcases the traditional battle between Republicans and Democrats, the Swiss live and swear by compromise. This is a very Swiss thing to disagree but go with the flow anyway. It does not mean each Swiss citizen is happy with the way things are, it is more a matter of submission to the supreme authority, the People, who regularly vote despite an obvious cultural, linguistic and social discrepancy.

Far from perfect, this system nevertheless allows people with different origins, languages, creeds and traditions to live quite peacefully together. Looking at what is happening to Switzerland’s neighbour France with the Yellow Vests Movement, or to the USA since the shutdown, it is only fair to wish they could function with compromise as well. This requires strong egos to back down and minor voices to rise, so they can meet halfway.

But the question remains, is it what powerful leaders are after? From the outside, it seems like the shutdown has nothing to do with the people, but embodies the personal and selfish victory –or defeat—one man will meet. Decisions need to be made, and what is at stake is not whether or not one man is right, but the wellbeing of thousands of people. Compared to the hundreds of migrants pouring into Europe, fleeing armed conflicts, famine and hopelessness, the USA cannot be fearing an invasion. As a nation of immigrants, who settled in the immensity of a country that already belonged to its Native peoples, the USA have a duty never to forget how they became to be.

Borders, walls, fences, and limits have probably always existed and today can still be admired as the stone ghosts of their builders’ will to protect themselves: the Great Wall of China, Hadrien’s Wall, Berlin’s Wall, or their ideological counterparts, the Iron Curtain, the Swiss Röstigraben* among others. Some know there is already a wall between the USA and Mexico, as depicted by the American writer T.C. Boyle in his 1995 novel “América”, the Tortilla Curtain rises between those who dream of a better future and those who seclude themselves in their gated communities to avoid contact with the invader. As the novel shows, the enemy is not always the stranger, and evil can grow its roots among the “rightful” ones.

No system, no regime, no government has ever been labeled perfect, but as the time comes, people can make a difference. As with children fighting over a toy, waiting for politicians to reach a compromise requires patience and understanding. But meanwhile, it requires people who work to receive the salary they deserve too. And this is why the art of compromise works in Switzerland: no one is left without a benefit. 

*Imaginary line separating French-speaking and German-speaking parts of Switzerland, alluding to a typical dish made of grated potatoes. 

Conversative Vet Responds to SOTU

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

The nature of the state of the union speech, with its widely disseminated advance copies and formal nature, proved to be the most presidential delivery of any speech the president has given since his inauguration speech. While he seemed bored at times he did appear presidential. Still, it was a good moment for him (if only by comparison).

Nonetheless, it appeared that there were a number of cases he could have made stronger.

The power of that platform, speaking directly to the American people gave him a window to appeal for this wall – and for his amnesty plan… the great compromise that he’s proposed still needs a horse to drive through the legislature, and this was the perfect time to  demand the masses to be that horse – possibly sealing the issue and easily skirting another impending shutdown.

It was a missed opportunity that will likely gain even more attention should we be back again looking at a closed government with Schumer sitting on his hands.

His comment on Apple’s $350bn also seemed odd – while it’s a large number, it seemed to me that it was the first offer to see if the IRS of the new regime would accept that as “enough” as a strategy to onshore corporate income under the new tax reform laws. By touting it in his speech, he may have possibly intended to set the model for other US multinational companies, but he likely gave Apple an early pass before their time.

He generally made a good case for the economy, which is likely his most compelling argument and point of strength. I wonder, though, if he has the ability to stay on message and for how long.

Tonight our government felt sort of normal for the first time in a while… but I admit, I’m waiting with bated breath for the other shoe (or tweet) to drop.

Training for the Government Shutdown

by with No Comment News

“Let’s be clear, the government shutdown could have been avoided. For a federal shutdown is not about lack of funding, but literally because of political agenda indifferences, congress has decided to place an “out for lunch” sign on the federal government.”

In Training Day, Alonzo asks Jake “you want to go jail, or do you want to go to home?” to pressure him into looking past the criminal actions of his scandalous drug unit, for the betterment of his own career and the actions his unit committed against a drug dealer. So, no love lost. The “go to jail” part, would be Alonzo and his unit framing Jake for the outright murder they committed on the drug dealer. Jake, had the initial inclination to report that the murder was unwarranted. The “go home” Part, would be a recommendation from Alonzo to advance Jake’s career in the future and Jake could get Alonzo another day. Jake decided to “go home”, movie-wise not really, but you get the point. He waited to go after Alonzo on another day.

So how does that relate to the government shutdown? The principals involved.

Trump and the Democrats in Congress have used their push of personal political interests to allow spending for nonessential federal services to stop. Pathetic.  The Democrats for months have been working with Trump and the Republicans in Congress to resolve issues surrounding DACA. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) and immigration as a whole was one of the core issues that propelled Trump to the presidency. Trump has insisted issues such as funding for the wall be a part of any immigration deal; the Democrats essentially told Trump to kick rocks, which led to an impasse on the issue and the subsequent government shutdown. The shutdown, which has nothing to do with immigration or any political issues for that matter, has been used to prove a point.

In Training Day, Alonzo and his crooked clan of cops shot and killed a drug dealer in his home to steal thousands he had underneath the floor. Alonzo needed that money to pay off a Russian mob debt he accumulated in Las Vegas. Given this is an election year, Trump must pander to his following and stay true to his wall claim and about being tough on immigration. The Democrats must pander to their following and fight on behalf of those who fall under the guidelines of DACA. And like Alonzo they took benefits and money away from the American people, by shutting down the government, for the betterment of their own agendas.

I told you I could relate the government shutdown to Training Day!

So, who is going home and who is going to jail? Trick question. For both the Democrats and Trump have realized how bad it looked for them to stop the operation of the government for their personal gain. They both don’t want to go jail, which would be political backlash, and both have decided to go home and fight this another day.

In the movie Training Day, Jake went through a lot to eventually get Alonzo, but eventually he went down. The Democrats allegedly pulled all the stops to try and satisfy Alonzo, I mean Trump, including adding funding for the wall on the Mexican border. The DACA issue is important, however the Democrats should not put themselves in the position of using political issues against the primary duty of their job, running the government. A lack of duty that will not be forgotten at the polls. In Training day Jake eventually brought Alonzo down, a combination of his intervention and Alonzo’s crooked history brought his demise.  Trump’s continual doubling down on his outlandish ideals and agenda, which are highly unpopular outside his base, should hurt Republicans in November. The Democrats just have to construct a feasible plan for their agenda, go home, and watch Trump go to jail. At this rate not just figuratively, but possibly literally.

Trump Strikes Another Deal with Dems… DACA Protection?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Surprisingly, or maybe not… Schumer and Pelosi released a joint statement last night suggesting that they struck another deal with President Trump.

“We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.” – Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi

This statement is interesting considering Trump’s campaign promise to build the wall. The White House immediately pushed back in a statement saying that they discussed tax reform, border security, and DACA; however, the wall was certainly not agreed to.

Just last week Trump struck a deal with Dems to extend the debt ceiling (for only 3 months) and pass $8 billion in Hurricane Harvey relief. Paul Ryan and other Republicans were caught completely off guard considering they were hoping to push the debt ceiling fight into 2018.

UPDATE: In a series of tweets (9/14/17) Trump denies that a DACA deal was reached… 

Trump denies the DACA deal, but then goes on to sympathize with Dreamers about why they deserve to stay. Whether or not they struck a deal last night, I think it’s safe to say that Trump wants Congress to write a bill that would allow Dreamers to stay.

If this second deal is true, will Trump’s base lose respect for him?

How will House Republicans respond?

Trump used to be a Democrat… should anyone be surprised that he’s striking deals with Dems?

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.