Why ads? π€ / Privacy Policy π³
"Officialsβ claims that 4,000 terrorists were apprehended at the border are grossly misleading"
An interesting question I’ve not discussed in the press is what would happen during an extended government shutdown when it comes to rent payments and utility bills. Could a government agency be evicted from its building by the landlord? The federal government rents a lot of buildings from private landlords. Figuring rental contracts and evictions are regulated under state law it gets even more complicated. I would imagine that under the US Constitution such a case would end up in federal court. Likewise, I could see a utility shutting off power to a government building if utility payments aren’t made.
I’m guessing what would happen first is a bunch of aggrieved landlords and other parties would go to a federal district court and make the argument that the federal government is obligated to pay due Article XIV of the constitution and the court would appoint a special master to review bills that the government is obligated to pay and then pay them regardless of the action of congress and the president. I could also see essential furloughed employees approaching a federal court and making the argument that they are subject to involuntary servitude, especially if they are subject to criminal sanctions for walking off the job during the furlough.
One thing I appreciate about the Trump Administration, is he’s been less of an asshole about the government shutdown,π© not unnecessarily shutting off government services during the temporary lapse in government funding. During the Government Shutdown during the Obama Administration, they not only shut down access to most of the federal parks,π they also shut off websites like that of US Census Bureau that could have been operating perfectly fine even with the furloughed government bureaucrats.
There areΒ many reduced government services and some areas closed during the shutdown, but in many ways the partial government shutdown under Trump is far less draconianπ then the one implemented by the Obama administration. While I think shutting down the government over the border wall is rather childish,Β πΆ I’d rather have a low-impact shutdown then one that maximizes the harm to the American people.π‘
I am in no way defending shutting the government for the stupid $15 billion money pit known as the border wall,π but I do support the smarter shutdown that is not unnecessarily closing down government programs that do not need government bureaucrats to administer them on a day-to-day basis.π
"Why would Donald Trump want to build another one?"
"While some Mexican taxpayers argued that a full course of treatment could cost more than a border wall, the Mexican President warned against skimping on such a necessary expense."
It Trump was a smart man he would already have his wall financed. He would ask the states of Texas and Arizona to float revenue bonds for the wall, backed up the federal government signing a lease purchase agreement with the states for the wall. The bonds would also include parts of the wall in New Mexico and California. To avoid having to get state legislature approval the states would sell the bonds to federal government on May 31st of each year, then the federal government would sell the bonds back before October 1st, to keep it off the federal budget.
The states would in turn hire the federal government to be the lead contractor for building the wall. Then the states would buy title insurance and bond insurance from insurance companies closely allied with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi.
I have no idea where I came up with idea but it seems like a sensible way forward. Congress can say their not funding the wall because it’s never on the budget come October. Sure they’ll have to make lease payments but with some careful use of Clean Water Revolving Act funds, and other federal government grants, I’m sure the president can figure out revenue to make the lease payment without impacting the budget.
