Prior to the candidacy of Donald Trump, the prospect of constructing a border wall was far-fetched due to its cost and its scope. However, it may now reach fruition: President Trump proposed amnesty for DACA Dreamers in exchange for $18 billion for the wall.
Trump's proposal of $18 billion would pay for 700 miles of new border security, according to the administration, and they are also asking for $15 billion to cover maintenance costs. While this $18 billion may seem insurmountable, relinquishing other funding commitments would free up the money in a heartbeat.
Four examples immediately come to mind:
Therefore, the U.S. government could raise $18 billion by eliminating four line items on the federal budget over the course of 10 years.
 |
| Donald Trump at the U.S.-Mexico border |
Trump's proposal of $18 billion would pay for 700 miles of new border security, according to the administration, and they are also asking for $15 billion to cover maintenance costs. While this $18 billion may seem insurmountable, relinquishing other funding commitments would free up the money in a heartbeat.
Four examples immediately come to mind:
- The United States gives $368 million to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees on a yearly basis, according to a Haaretz report. Eliminating this spending would free up $3.68 billion over the course of the next ten years.
- Since 2002, the U.S. has given Pakistan $33 billion. Canceling these programs would surely free up at least $6.62 billion over the next 10 years.
- On a yearly basis, the U.S. gives $320 million to Mexico through multiple conduits. Eliminating this excess would save $3.2 billion over 10 years.
- According to a figure provided by the 2012 budget, the U.S. government spends $445 million yearly on NPR and PBS. Cancelling this spending would save $4.5 billion over 10 years.
Therefore, the U.S. government could raise $18 billion by eliminating four line items on the federal budget over the course of 10 years.
In the process, the government can protect the American people from an influx of drugs and unverified persons while also making it clear that the U.S. backs up amnesty with action. A DACA deal that doesn't "check" the latter box should be rejected on arrival.
A wall would also solve two problems: Underemployment and millions in unwarranted welfare benefits. As always the case with infrastructure projects, there would be a surplus of job opportunities for the men and women of Texas, Arizona, and the other states that border Mexico. As for the latter point, illegal immigrants receive more benefits than they pay in taxes.
According to a report published by the Heritage Foundation, "Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion." While that $54.5 billion will not go away anytime soon (especially if we give 800,000 illegal immigrants a free pass, opening the door for further amnesties), there will be no future costs if a wall is constructed.
Consider the savings both ways: The economic vitality that would follow the construction of the wall would expand federal tax revenues, and the potential future savings would shrink federal spending.
The border wall wouldn't just be an $18 billion infrastructure project (which can easily be paid for by cutting several items from the budget); it would be a job-creating method that would save the government money in the long run. I encourage President Trump to maintain his promise to the American people, and I urge the Democrats to accept his DACA-for-wall offer.
Comments
Post a Comment