Let Recovered Drug Money Pay for the Wall

 

I receive emails from Ted Cruz headquarters. I voted for him when he ran for President and his recent email is worth sharing. He’s introducing term limits as well as the El Chapo Act, suggesting that recovered drug money could pay for border security. Meanwhile, the Democrats offer no solutions, just obstruction. Here is Senator Cruz’s latest email letter below: What do you think about his suggestions?

“Greetings,”

“Thursday marked the beginning of a new Congress, and it is my great honor to serve 28 million Texans. I will continue to work closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on a number of important committees, including the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Joint Economic Committee. Additionally, I was named to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I will use my position there to enhance our national security while remaining deeply involved with Texas’ military community, which is a key pillar of our national strength. I remain committed to fighting for our state, promoting conservative values, and ensuring Texans’ concerns are voiced and addressed in our legislative efforts.

For far too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people. Congress must hold itself accountable. On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms. The American people overwhelmingly support term limits, and I hope my colleagues will submit this amendment to the states for ratification.

Congress has a clear mandate from the American people: secure the border and build the wall. I have long called for building a wall as a necessary step in defending our border, and this week, I reintroduced the EL CHAPO Act. Right now, the U.S. Government is seeking the criminal forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits from El Chapo. His $14 billion would go a long way in offsetting the cost of securing our border, hindering the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and individuals, and would help make significant progress toward delivering on the promises made to the American people.”

Keep Texas Strong,

Ted Cruz

There are 28 comments.

  1. Bob Thompson Member

    Do it. That will be something like Mexico paying for the wall.

    • #1
    • January 7, 2019, at 8:41 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  2. Eustace C. Scrubb Member

    I agree entirely. (While we’re at it, can we confiscate money from other criminal organizations? I’m thinking we could pay federal workers if we took money from the Clinton fund and the DNC.)

    • #2
    • January 7, 2019, at 8:51 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  3. I Walton Member

    I hate the idea of letting the Federal government choose how to spend confiscated monies, it becomes like a speed trap. In this case however, sounds good but it must be limited to these funds and the wall or it creates more perverse long run incentives.

    • #3
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:00 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  4. Fred Cole Member

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.
    • #4
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:10 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. OldDanRhody Member

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    1&2: OK
    3: speculation
    4: OK
    5&6: ho-hum.

    • #5
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. Hoyacon Member

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    There’s certainly a degree of showboating here by the good Senator, but the bottom line is actually completely contrary to #6. Even if one concedes points 1-4, there’s nothing wrong with it. Any revenue derived is a bonus. Assuming that one wants the wall to begin with.

     

    • #6
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:28 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. The Reticulator Member

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be). 

    • #7
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:29 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Bob Thompson Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be).

    How about twelve years for each? Or twelve years for the House and repeal the 17th?

    • #8
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:33 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. EODmom Coolidge

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    There’s certainly a degree of showboating here by the good Senator, but the bottom line is actually completely contrary to #6. Even if one concedes points 1-4, there’s nothing wrong with it. Any revenue derived is a bonus. Assuming that one wants the wall to begin with.

     

    Objections to particular elements strike me as just convenient justification for doing nothing. Which seems to be the real position. It seems to say: Don’t consider anything, or any individual ‘things’ because there’s no “perfect” solution. 

    For pete’s sake, just start the damned thing with rigorous intention and see what works. It’s not like there’s a dearth of ideas that actual reasonable people have given thought to. And implemented elsewhere. This is not a new problem. It’s tempting to find an appropriate quote from Animal House to throw in here. 

    • #9
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:42 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  10. EODmom Coolidge

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    As to #4: not providing for maintenance hasn’t stopped wind farm salesmen from successfully selling their wares to unsuspecting small towns looking at “lease” deals to put up largely useless turbines. No one is telling them that the turbines are surprisingly fragile and have a short lifespan. 

    ‘First stop the hordes. 

    • #10
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  11. Doug Watt Member

    American taxpayers might benefit from some compensation from an El Chapo seizure to defray some of the costs to build a wall. The bottom line is that taxpayers will still fund the wall. Government doesn’t produce a product, the only income they receive is through taxes. Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, their government doesn’t produce a product either.

    Your dog produces shovel ready projects in the back yard at no expense to the taxpayer. Government 101 takes tax dollars to pay someone to dig a hole, Government 102 takes tax dollars to pay another person to fill that hole.

    • #11
    • January 7, 2019, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Fred Cole Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There’s certainly a degree of showboating here by the good Senator, but the bottom line is actually completely contrary to #6. Even if one concedes points 1-4, there’s nothing wrong with it. Any revenue derived is a bonus. Assuming that one wants the wall to begin with.

     

    Wait. What!?!? 

    Ted Cruz … showboating … in a fundraising email to supporters…

    That cannot possible be! Certainly not Ted Cruz!

    • #12
    • January 7, 2019, at 10:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    Trump was only asking for 5.6 billion. We still have to maintain the wall as it is, and its not in good shape. The $14 billion is just from the El Chapo bunch. There is plenty of drug money confiscated each year elsewhere, along with the drugs, weapons, and stolen property. Confiscating the goods from drug busts yields cars, boats, jewelry, art, property that can be auctioned and the money put into the wall fund. There’s not a one size fits all solution – but a start? Being the senator of a border state, he’s offering something.

    • #13
    • January 7, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  14. The Reticulator Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be).

    How about twelve years for each? Or twelve years for the House and repeal the 17th?

    It’s going to be difficult enough to get term limits passed without adding provisions that will make it impossible to get support even from those people who are willing to be reasonable about it. That’s been a problem with all term limit proposals so far. They include provisions that I might not even support, because the usual objections about lack of continuity turnover of power over to the unelected staff do have some merit. Term limits don’t have to be draconian to do a lot of good.

    To decide what the limits should be, we need a table showing the number of terms served by each of the current members of Congress. We only need to lop off a few of the worst offenders to mitigate the damage done by excessive incumbency.

     

    • #14
    • January 7, 2019, at 11:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There’s certainly a degree of showboating here by the good Senator, but the bottom line is actually completely contrary to #6. Even if one concedes points 1-4, there’s nothing wrong with it. Any revenue derived is a bonus. Assuming that one wants the wall to begin with.

    Wait. What!?!?

    Ted Cruz … showboating … in a fundraising email to supporters…

    That cannot possible be! Certainly not Ted Cruz!

    Fred – this isn’t a fundraising email. His office sends out progress reports every few weeks, mostly pertaining to Texas, but also country-wide. They gave updated reports on the Houston hurricane, schools, various infrastructure projects, and whatever else they are involved in. It’s a suggestion – use confiscated drug money to build the wall / border security. If you or others don’t like the idea, have you heard of a better one up to this point?

    It’s not like everyone in government hasn’t had enough time to think about it, and address the problems. The last administration just put up a free entry sign, the border guards were told to wave people in, and they get bused off to various towns across the country, and benefits. Their children are enrolled in school. I heard it straight from many who work in this area and a builder we were using. The chain migration was a favorite – they told us they knew when Obama left, it would stop so their relatives were coming in droves.

    In the meantime, other Hispanics who I know and are here legally hate all of it. They applied legally, they pay taxes and own property. They don’t want a free ride. These are the people we welcome. If you are being persecuted, that’s one thing, but we have immigration laws on the books, and breaking them because you want to isn’t one of them.

    • #15
    • January 7, 2019, at 11:40 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  16. DonG Coolidge

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    1. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    2. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.

    The Sensenbrenner BUILD WALL act of 2017 would have allowed any confiscated drug money to fund the wall. It is estimated that $26B/year flows south to the cartels.

     

    Congressman Sensenbrenner Introduces the BUILD WALL Act of 2017

    February 15, 2017

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Build Up Illegal Line Defenses With Assets Lawfully Lifted (BUILD WALL) Act of 2017 in the House of Representatives.As the national conversation on immigration continues to heat up, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are working to find solutions that will protect our border while being conscientious of taxpayers’ money. One such solution is Congressman Sensenbrenner’s BUILD WALL Act of 2017.This legislation would require the U.S. Attorney General to provide a detailed report on the amount of annual profits brought into the United States by Mexican drug cartels, as well as a study of how the Department of Justice can increase assets seized from such cartels. Additionally, the BUILD WALL Act would use money forfeited from drug traffickers to fund increased border security on the U.S./ Mexican border. This defense could include a wall, another type of physical barrier, and/or a technology-supported solution. The use of this funding would ease the financial burdens on taxpayers and help build stronger relations between the United States and Mexico while fighting back against drug trafficking in both countries.Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Border security is imperative for a safe, prosperous nation and lawmakers must take a serious approach to solving the issues of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. If we do nothing, we put the people of this nation at risk, as well as allow illegal immigrants to take away jobs, opportunities, and social funding from U.S. citizens – all at the expense of the American taxpayer. The BUILD WALL Act is a creative solution to a complex problem and I encourage my colleagues to support it.” 

     

    • #16
    • January 7, 2019, at 12:19 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. Fred Cole Member

    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    • #17
    • January 7, 2019, at 1:00 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. The Reticulator Member

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    It’s good that you find things interesting. Keep your mind active, and maybe it won’t deteriorate in old age. 

    • #18
    • January 7, 2019, at 1:11 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  19. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    On the contrary, it’s the drug cartels who take, both life and health and lead others to a life of crime and dependency. It’s a way of paying back for the damage.

    • #19
    • January 7, 2019, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  20. toggle Inactive

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    On the contrary, it’s the drug cartels who take, both life and health and lead others to a life of crime and dependency. It’s a way of paying back for the damage.

    Like, why repair the roof when it’s not raining ? Because you’ll lose a lot more money—and things valuable—once it pours in.
    Conserving something of value and making an investment that will cost less than the damage caused after allowing it to occur may be or not be “conservative,” but makes sense.
    The only justification for no border security seems to be “borders bad” as a matter of principle. Yet when I vote in local elections, I cannot vote in those held in San Francisco. Or in state elections, for those held in California. They stipulate borders to organize policy decision making. That is accepted as uncontroversial—but a national border ? Look at the harm it causes !
    And it’s not just a matter of voting. Borders are reasonably used to organize all parts of society (even things as banal as restrooms). Or, at least it used to be the case. Probably conservative it is to protect our way of life from predictable threats. The right is voted in to clean up the mess the left created; then the left finds a way to spoil it again. And the cycle goes on. No border as a matter of principle just doesn’t hold water.

    • #20
    • January 7, 2019, at 4:16 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  21. DonG Coolidge

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    Nothing more conservative (a tried and true solution for ordered liberty) than having strong national defense. 

    • #21
    • January 8, 2019, at 1:39 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  22. Barfly Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be).

    How about twelve years for each? Or twelve years for the House and repeal the 17th?

    I never understood the 12-years-for-both idea – it contradicts basic American civics. The House is designed to turn over frequently and therefore be immediately accountable, while the Senate provides continuity. The only thing wrong with Senator Cruz’s proposed amendment is the three-term limit on Representatives. Two terms max for the President, two terms max for Senators, two terms max for the House. Three isn’t logically defensible.

    I think this idea of matching limits for Senators and Representatives probably comes from some ill-considered notion of “fairness.” Is that right? If so, I suggest it’s more important to be fair to our 3 x 10^8 citizens than to a handful of congresscritters.

    • #22
    • January 8, 2019, at 2:45 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    EODmom (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so there’s several problems with this:

    1. Government officials regularly and wildly inflate numbers when it comes to anything involving the War on Drugs. So that alleged $14 billion is probably far less than that.
    2. It’s not like they’re going to recover the full amount anyway.
    3. Even if somehow they got their paws on $14 billion (which they won’t), it would only cover like 56% of the price of building the wall.
    4. We’d still have to pay maintaince on the wall.
    5. Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?
    6. Everything else that’s wrong with it.

    There’s certainly a degree of showboating here by the good Senator, but the bottom line is actually completely contrary to #6. Even if one concedes points 1-4, there’s nothing wrong with it. Any revenue derived is a bonus. Assuming that one wants the wall to begin with.

     

    Objections to particular elements strike me as just convenient justification for doing nothing. Which seems to be the real position. It seems to say: Don’t consider anything, or any individual ‘things’ because there’s no “perfect” solution.

    For pete’s sake, just start the damned thing with rigorous intention and see what works. It’s not like there’s a dearth of ideas that actual reasonable people have given thought to. And implemented elsewhere. This is not a new problem. It’s tempting to find an appropriate quote from Animal House to throw in here.

    We can use the money Congress agreed to cough up last time there was a deal for a wall. 

    • #23
    • January 8, 2019, at 9:06 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be).

    How about twelve years for each? Or twelve years for the House and repeal the 17th?

    It’s going to be difficult enough to get term limits passed without adding provisions that will make it impossible to get support even from those people who are willing to be reasonable about it. That’s been a problem with all term limit proposals so far. They include provisions that I might not even support, because the usual objections about lack of continuity turnover of power over to the unelected staff do have some merit. Term limits don’t have to be draconian to do a lot of good.

    To decide what the limits should be, we need a table showing the number of terms served by each of the current members of Congress. We only need to lop off a few of the worst offenders to mitigate the damage done by excessive incumbency.

     

    I can’t imagine term-limits passing without a grandfather clause. 

    • #24
    • January 8, 2019, at 9:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: On Thursday, Rep. Francis Rooney and I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress, limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

    I am a huge fan of term limits and am sorry to see that such stringent limits are being proposed, especially for the House, thus ensuring they will not be enacted (nor should they be).

    How about twelve years for each? Or twelve years for the House and repeal the 17th?

    It’s going to be difficult enough to get term limits passed without adding provisions that will make it impossible to get support even from those people who are willing to be reasonable about it. That’s been a problem with all term limit proposals so far. They include provisions that I might not even support, because the usual objections about lack of continuity turnover of power over to the unelected staff do have some merit. Term limits don’t have to be draconian to do a lot of good.

    To decide what the limits should be, we need a table showing the number of terms served by each of the current members of Congress. We only need to lop off a few of the worst offenders to mitigate the damage done by excessive incumbency.

    “Did someone say ‘lop off a few of the worst offenders?” – Joseph-Ignace Guillotin

    • #25
    • January 8, 2019, at 10:02 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. Fred Cole Member

    DonG (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    Nothing more conservative (a tried and true solution for ordered liberty) than having strong national defense.

    Is that what you think the wall is?

    • #26
    • January 9, 2019, at 3:17 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    Nothing more conservative (a tried and true solution for ordered liberty) than having strong national defense.

    Is that what you think the wall is?

    If it isn’t – then what is it?

    • #27
    • January 10, 2019, at 6:28 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Fred Cole Member

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    You know, it’s interesting to listen to a forum full of conservatives talk about how they’re going to take money from other people to pay for a gigantic public works project.

    Nothing more conservative (a tried and true solution for ordered liberty) than having strong national defense.

    Is that what you think the wall is?

    If it isn’t – then what is it?

    It’s just a gimmick to con supporters with. It isn’t a serious proposal. Trump doesn’t want to build the thing. He wants the issue. 

    • #28
    • January 10, 2019, at 6:47 AM PDT
    • Like