The LuLac Edition #4,023, March 6th, 2019

WRITE ON WEDNESDAY

Our “Write On Wednesday” logo

The President’s money for the wall has been a big bone of contention with many in America. The Times Leader recently did an editorial citing two Northeastern Pa Democrats who asked the simple question, where is the money coming from? That’s this week’s Write On Wednesday.

CASEY, CARTWRIGHT RIGHT TO ASK WHERE MONEY FOR WALL WILL COME FROM

U..S. Sen. Robert Casey (D-Scranton) and 10 other federal legislators from Pennsylvania, including Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Moosic) took the right approach in questioning President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration to fund border wall construction.
In a letter dated Feb. 27 to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, they posed a reasonable, non-partisan query: “Specifically what dollars, if any, will be taken away from appropriated Pennsylvania projects to fund border wall security”?
There are legitimate questions as to how a president can ask Congress for appropriations to pay for a major construction project, get a response from duly elected representatives fulfilling their Constitutional duty to determine where federal money goes, agree to sign the bill, and immediately declare an emergency to circumvent said congressional appropriations.
Sound legal arguments have already been filed in federal court contending this is overreach by the executive branch, and that debate will presumably be settled — as it is supposed to be in a system with three co-equal branches of government — by the courts. Wall proponents and critics alike should be prepared to accept the final outcome of the court challenges. That’s how America is supposed to work.
Fitting to their place in the process, the letter by Casey and the other legislators does not debate legality of the emergency declaration. Instead it asks for something everyone should want: an accountability of the impact.
It is critical to remember that the emergency declaration does not create new money for the wall and leave money for other military spending intact. Quite the contrary, it is intended to justify the president bypassing congressional appropriations already in place, to move money from one defense project to another. Casey et. al. simply asked where the money will be moved from.
The letter cites specific funding that has been appropriated by congress for Pennsylvania projects, but not yet allocated (a bit like setting aside money to remodel your kitchen but not yet signing a deal with a contractor). Projects the lawmakers believe are under consideration of losing money so the wall can be built are:
• $71 million for construction of a Submarine Propulsor Manufacturing Support facility in Philadelphia to produce parts that drive our newest class of nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines.
• $85 million for Air Force Reserve projects in Pittsburgh to allow use of larger C-17 cargo aircraft. This, in turn, should help the 911th Air Wing better support service members deployed overseas.
• $8 million for a National Guard project in Fort Indiantown Gap to replace a training facility and dining hall.
The letter highlights an issue that’s important to consider independent of the legality of the emergency declaration: How will other defense projects be impacted by taking funding for them and spending it on the wall? How many jobs will be lost and where? How much will it affect our overall military readiness and ongoing operations?
These questions should be answered before dollars are shuffled around, so that all lawmakers as well as the public can decide if they feel those projects losing money are less important than building the wall.