HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Senate deal would block P...

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:04 PM

Senate deal would block Pentagon from using coronavirus funds on border wall

Source: the hill.





By Rebecca Kheel - 03/25/20 02:39 PM EDT


The massive stimulus package awaiting a vote in the Senate would prohibit the Pentagon from shifting $10.5 billion in coronavirus funding to a counter-drug account it has been using to fund President Trump’s southern border wall.

According to bill text released by the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill would allow the Pentagon to transfer the coronavirus funds to other accounts “except for ‘Drug March Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.’”

A Democratic summary of the bill described the language as intended to “prevent funds in this title from being diverted to build a wall on the southern border.”

Earlier this year, the Pentagon transferred $3.8 billion from various weapons programs to the counter-drug fund to use to build the border wall.

That’s on top of $2.5 billion from counter-drug funds and $3.6 billion in military construction the Pentagon tapped last year to fund the wall.

The transfers infuriated Democrats -- and this year, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee -- who argued the Trump administration was usurping Congress’ power of the purse.
...........................................

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/489496-senate-deal-would-block-pentagon-from-using-coronavirus-funds-on-border-wall

10 replies, 1833 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate deal would block Pentagon from using coronavirus funds on border wall (Original post)
riversedge Wednesday OP
jls4561 Wednesday #1
John Fante Wednesday #2
VWolf Wednesday #3
cstanleytech Wednesday #4
ck4829 Wednesday #5
durablend Wednesday #6
slumcamper Wednesday #7
NotHardly Wednesday #8
IronLionZion Wednesday #9
oldsoftie Wednesday #10

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:06 PM

1. Excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:08 PM

2. The fact that it needs to put in writing says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Fante (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:12 PM

3. Was about to say the same thing n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:20 PM

4. I hope Pelosi never restores the fund's Trump with Republican Senators consent

misappropriated to fund his wall.

When anybody complains point out that the Republicans had the power and the obligation to stop him but they refused to because they wanted to get as many conservative judges on the bench as they could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:23 PM

5. Pertinent because no wall could have stopped this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:35 PM

6. Does it also keep him from using it as campaign funds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 04:53 PM

7. Not so fast...

Unless it stands as a superordinate, binding principle of the ENTIRE bill, they will simply subappropriate from elsewhere.

E.g., "no part of this funding shall be reallocated, diverted, or otherwise subappropriated to any purpose whatsoever relative to the erection of a border barrier, or wall, including its planning, funding, construction, or maintenance."

However--even such a binding principle means nothing to an administration that refuses to "faithfully execute the laws...", flouts oversight, and blocks, challenges or resists legal ctions to hold it accountable.

Can you say DICTATORSHIP??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 05:05 PM

8. Yes, like other poster said... the fact this actually has to be put in writing says it all...

F**kers can't be trusted for a single instant, not ever. Lie, hide, cheat, and steal... Republican motto. Judge what they do (or try to do) not what they say, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 05:21 PM

9. Yeah but Corona comes from Mexico



The dumbest and most evil Trumpsters are online still saying dangerous diseases are coming up from undocumented immigrants crossing our southern border.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2020, 06:00 PM

10. And apparently blocks any funds from going to trump properties.

But 1000 pages? How is it that these fools cant write a damn bill less than 1000 pages?
I think the "cash to people" should have been a separate bill. The corporate bailout a separate bill. The small business a separate bill. It would be much easier to cover all the bases without Congress members trying to stick their own BS into the bills

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread