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

 

Don Lemon… Domestic Terrorism and Revisionist History

by with No Comment CultureFeatured

A few weeks ago, CNN Host Don Lemmon inflamed the nation when he said, “The biggest threat in this country is White men.”  Well, he didn’t inflame the nation, mainly just Conservative White men, including President Trump.

Side note, writing President Trump still shocks me. It’s like early in the New Year when you haven’t gotten used to writing January yet. 

Anyway. 

The same people Don Lemmon inflamed with his comment are literally the same people who often say don’t talk about race, don’t talk about slavery, so no surprise there. The comment was NOT a comment against White men, it was against the White men who have been the chief architects for most of the recent domestic terror in this nation. While so many people dwelled on his comment, I think it’s important to note that White men have largely been responsible for the gross atrocities in our nation… specifically the genocide and damn near decimation of Native Americans, and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. As much as some people might not want to hear it or dispute it… that’s history. 

The surprise for me is the repeated attempts to push revisionist history and narratives that are completely false. Notions such as “the Civil War was over states rights,” or that slavery does not have deep roots in the minds of extremists. Extremists that have used their boisterous ways and power to influence others. In fact, not only have they minimized the wrongs of this nation, in many cases, they’ve attempted to suggest that said wrongs never occurred.

The storyline is simple… White Conservative/Republican men refuse to acknowledge that the lion share of mass shootings and serial killings in this country are carried out by hate groups and civil militias comprised of White men, or as some media outlets truthfully refer to them, White Supremacists. (Fact.) 

Revisionist history… really bad revisionist history… so bad, it reminds me of an episode on Martin in which Martin and Gina tell very different stories of how they first met. Each told their version of the story with extreme bias. The real truth of how they first met had to be told by a neutral party to avoid bias and blatant lies. It’s a very funny episode because it’s TV… not real life minimized to talking points by the extreme right regarding issues of humanity in this nation. 

The Turkey Is Almost Done

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedPolitics

Democrats were hoping for a “blue wave” in this weeks Midterms elections. Though the “blue wave” failed to make shore for nationally followed races such as Beto in Texas, he lost by the thinnest of margin which is encouraging by any standard. The other nationally followed races for Governor in both Georgia and Florida are still too close to call and on the verge of a runoff election. Some Democrats were looking for more than a wave, rather a Tsunami. Polls regarding the approval of the Trump administration have been historically low, and the midterm elections were seen as the chance for said Democratic wave to begin the drowning of Trump’s influence through Congress, which would build momentum for a hopeful defeat of Trump in 2020. Though the wave wasn’t a big enough splash in certain places, the blue wave did swallow up enough seats to take over the House of Representatives.

So a Tsunami didn’t happen, but historic waves did make landfall, and the waves were dominated by women. Surfing to shore were the following:

Two Muslim women to Congress, both equally being the first to do so.

The first Native American woman to Congress…

The first lesbian mother to Congress… 

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress… 

The first Black woman ever elected as the Attorney General of New York… 

Also, the first every openly gay man was elected Governor of Colorado.

In my opinion, that’s a splash to be proud of. 

In addition to people, major progress was made nationwide regarding policies. Marijuana is now legal in Michigan, and medically legal in Utah and Missouri. The unsung victory from the midterm elections was without question Amendment 4 passing in Florida, which now grants voting rights to nearly 1.5 million Floridians who were former felons. (I’ll stress that importance in a little bit.) 

Twenty years ago (1998), there was no such thing as legalized Marijuana, and gay marriage was still illegal! We now have an openly gay Governor and legal Marijuana of any usage in ten states. That’s important.

Here in Texas, Hillary Clinton lost by 9% to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election. Two years later, Beto O’ Rourke lost by less than 3% to the well-funded incumbent in Republican Senator Ted Cruz (in the largest red state in the country). The fact that Beto realistically only had a punchers chance against Cruz and almost come away with a victory, is a victory. Here’s why the “moral victories” in Texas are a sign of possible change. For Republicans, big states in which they depend on like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, can have blue tendencies. Not Texas. Texas is counted on to hold down the GOP fort, due to its 38 electoral votes, second to only California’s 55. The next pure red states with as many electoral votes are Georgia with 16, North Carolina with 15, and Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee each with 11. I think it’s important to note that the unaspiring candidate in Hillary Clinton only lost by nine points in Texas with very little effort in campaigning, and Beto who actually campaigned barely lost. Such improvement in only two years should awaken the Democrat brass to start putting more money and effort into Texas for maybe not a blue wave, but a good ole Texas blue twister to stir things up. 

The way Andrew Gillum destroyed his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis, sparred with Trump via twitter, performed extremely well in the gubernatorial debates, and considering the changes in demographics… Gillium should have won by double digits. Gillum is down by less than .5 percent, which means they’re likely headed towards a recount. Is it not a fair assumption that the 1.5 million formerly convicted felons who just had their voting rights restored could’ve helped him out? 

I know Democrats and Progressives didn’t win every seat they wanted to; however, the numbers are increasing in the right direction in this nation. It’s like hearing “still not done” being yelled by grandma in the kitchen on Thanksgiving regarding the Turkey and her famous side dishes you’ve been patiently waiting for all day. The food isn’t done but you can smell how close it is. You can even see the plates coming out the cabinet. And that’s okay, long as you stay in your chair and don’t get up. No one can take your spot and you’ll be sure to get first dibs on whatever you. 

Korean Reunification Will Never Work, and Here’s Why

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobal

In response to Trump Succeeds Where Obama Did Not

I have great hope for the upcoming talks with North Korea, and I agree that the tone and setting are different than they’ve ever been before.  That said, while there is a possibility of everyone getting what they want (and thus currently a sense of great optimism in the possibility by all sides, and a thrust of welcoming outreach as each party sets up for the talks), there remain quite a few conflicting, zero-sum core objectives that are likely to color the actual talks and their ultimate impact.

First among these is reunification itself.  While reunification is a North and South objective, “reunification” looks very different in the minds of the two heads of state.  These two nations remain at war because each of their governments is unwilling to not be the surviving entity.  Further, reunification is China’s worst outcome.  China is at times uncomfortable with the DPRK and sees a nuclear North as problematic, but ultimately, their needs are best met by having a divided Korea and a buffer state between China and US-aligned South Korea.  North Korea is unlikely to re-align with the West regardless of North/South relations, and is unlikely to open itself up much at all.

Northern power is based on their own narrative and control of information.  Strict adherence to this policy has given the Kim dynasty firm control over a starving population.  Family reunification on any meaningful scale is likely to provide an infection of truth that might well topple their hold on the hearts and minds of the North Korean people.  As such, hopes of reunification (even among families) seems hard to imagine.

Additionally, we have come to this place precisely because the DPRK is on the brink of developing a nuclear missile that can hit the US mainland.  This attention and recognition was precisely the DPRK’s objective in building this weapon, and when the talks are over and the DPRK improves its situation from desperately starving to abject poverty through foreign aid, they are likely to realize once again that their best alternative is to tear up any nuclear concessions and go back to threatening the world with nuclear weapons.

What worries me is the only end to this loop is a sub-optimal outcome nearly everyone in the region.  Imagine a world where the DPRK after successful agreements violates those concessions and returns to weapon production.  The US strikes a deal with China that the US will destroy the weapons sites with force, but will allow China (not South Korea) to enter.  South Korea bears the brunt of a conventional artillery barrage, but repels a DPRK advance – but at great loss of life.  North Korea becomes either part of China proper or a puppet vassal state, likely ending the prospect of Korean reunification for at least the next 100 years.  In order to gain China’s acquiescence, the US would likely have to agree to cede our heavy presence in the Pacific – greatly reducing the US footprint on land and water, and likely leaving South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Japan to deal with China as the unequivocal regional hegemon.

And Trump may well like that deal.  It protects the US from a nuclear threat (America first), moves the US back from our global posture (which he has said from the start is among his objectives), and in exchange for the US conceding regional hegemony to China (which he and many others see as merely a realistic eventuality), he is likely to get strong trade concessions that will benefit US industry in the short term.  In the thousand year sense, China also likes that deal – with the US gone from the region, they return to their rightful place atop the Asian region- achieved through negotiations, money and Korean (not Chinese) blood.

So while all of that is good for the US and China, it may be a bit early to start handing out Nobel Prizes.  The Trump/Xi version of Realpolitik is more likely to look like it did in the Franco-Prussian era- like two great powers carving out their spheres of influence.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  But we will see…

Even Jamie Dimon Sounds Like Middle America

by with No Comment CultureFeatured

Jamie Dimon: “It’s almost an embarrassment being an American citizen!”

What a difference six months has made – Last January, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon couldn’t stop talking about the “moment of opportunity” at the start of the Trump Presidency. At the time, he believed what many Republicans believed: that with the election behind us, the President would appoint a cabinet that could assemble policy plans even if he didn’t oversee them directly, that Congress would support those plans, draft legislation and reform that was in parity with White House policy and the President would sign it. Ah- what dreams may come…

In my day job, I must have listened to 200 or more bank earnings calls, and JPMorgan’s is one of the most important. They are generally stale and rehearsed- almost like a State of the Union address. So it’s hard to imagine this was an off-the-cuff exclamation by a long-standing, experienced leader.  But it was in some ways comforting to see an uber-conservative, powerful, connected person like Jamie Dimon feel as helpless as the rest of us as we near the second fight over an Obamacare repeal that increasingly seems to be going sideways, with bank reform, tax reform and a real budget plan still over the horizon.

Wall Street has much to fear from this stagnation. Much of the “Trump Rally” of early 2017 was due to expectations of a “lightning fast” administration that expected to already have unilaterally repealed Obamacare, put out a new budget with sweeping tax cuts, a $1 trillion (with a ‘T’) infrastructure plan, higher interest rates, a boost in GDP growth, and a massive re-vamp of Dodd-Frank alongside sweeping policy changes for bank capital plans. As the train backs up from a 2017 agenda to 2018 at best, a whole year of growth that may already be “baked in” to 2017 earnings (especially in financials) looks more and more like over-optimism… and the pain of that shortfall will be shouldered heavily by Dimon.

It feels like something’s gotta give, and my guess – maybe even my hope – is that it’s the Senate filibuster. Maybe the 60 vote cloture rule really is a relic of a lost era – when the point really was just to make sure all sides had a chance to speak (not to hold hostage the democratic process), and filibusters were rare – rather than the universal means to halt any legislation at all. Senators – this is why we can’t have nice things.

It’s time to pick an agenda and go. Repeal or move on. Obamacare is important, but tax and budget planning are the backbone of GDP projections, corporate growth and earnings, and a myriad of corporate planning objectives for the next 5 years. The Senate has set its time table based on their internal politics, and the country has spoken – that just can’t be the timeline. Godspeed, Senator McCain, I wish you a speedy recovery. But it isn’t just about one vote. It’s time to get this past us and move on to the next phase of economic growth- or by October, the “Trump Rally” may yet be another bear market.