Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJonathan Alter: No congressman who voted against State Dept....
.....request for $300,000 funds for security for diplomats should be calling for prosecution of Benghazi incident.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
15 replies, 3552 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (78)
ReplyReply to this post
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jonathan Alter: No congressman who voted against State Dept.... (Original Post)
grasswire
Nov 2012
OP
Security Needs, Budget Clash Protection Is a Concern After Consulate Deaths (GOP is CYA)
zwyziec
Nov 2012
#10
oh, but they will, you can bet your ass they will. reTHUG politicians are shameless.
spanone
Nov 2012
#15
tblue37
(65,358 posts)1. KnR. nt
dhol82
(9,353 posts)2. damn straight
really damn straight.
this whole benghazi thing is a made up winger shitstorm of jackshit.
StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)11. "this whole benghazi thing is a made up winger shitstorm of jackshit"
You sir, have a way with words.
And, you are totally right.
And! Welcome to DU!
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)13. well they stuck with fast and furious for over a year..
benghazi is the soup d' jour for the fokkks bubble... they would love to take it to impeachment... think that would pretty much guarantee us the house in 14
still_one
(92,190 posts)3. This has got to be blasted over and over, because the msm won't do it
grasswire
(50,130 posts)4. how do we find the roll call vote on that request?
Does anyone know?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)6. Ain't that the truth! nt
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)7. $300 million
Glad he's pushing this. Fucking GOP hypocrites are useless to this country.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)9. $300 thousand
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)14. $330 million actually
SHRED
(28,136 posts)8. Link? Do we know who they are?
zwyziec
(173 posts)10. Security Needs, Budget Clash Protection Is a Concern After Consulate Deaths (GOP is CYA)
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_23/Security-Needs-Budget-Clash-217708-1.html
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to brief lawmakers about diplomatic security challenges and the Middle East today, but it's obvious those needs conflict with the budget austerity that Congress has embraced.
Even as Senators raise concerns about embassy security funding and personnel after the recent rash of assaults against U.S. outposts, Congress has proposed spending reductions for Worldwide Security Protection, an umbrella account within the State Department budget that funds efforts to keep diplomats safe.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, said Wednesday that security should be beefed up, but he did not signal a push for more money.
"If I were president of the United States, I would send a unequivocal statement to the people in the region: If you attack our interests, there will be consequences," Graham said. "I would reinforce our embassies and our consulates, and I would get deeply involved with each nation to try to find a way to maintain a foothold on progress."
In the stand-alone State Department spending bills for the most recent and the current fiscal years, the Senate did try to fund the diplomatic security accounts at higher levels than the House - a result of the difference between each chambers' adopted spending levels.
Specifically, Senators proposed providing a total of $245 million more than the $2.96 billion offered by their House counterparts.
In a sign of the budget environment, however, even the Senate total - about $3.21 billion for the two years - fell short of the $3.44 billion the White House requested.
In the short term, none of those cuts are imminent because the government will be operating on a continuing resolution for the next six months, maintaining current levels. Separately, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that automatic budget cuts required by sequestration would trim the budget for embassy security and infrastructure by $129 million in 2013. Those automatic cuts are scheduled to take effect at the end of the year.
A House Republican aide stressed that House appropriators in both parties and both chambers are committed to providing the resources the State Department says it needs to protect American diplomats. However, the aide points out that security on the ground also must be negotiated with the host country.
Rep. Nita Lowey, the ranking member on the corresponding House Appropriations subcommittee, has been concerned about the reductions in State Department security funding.
"Security is paramount not only to the men and women serving our nation abroad, but also for the thousands of American citizens traveling or working overseas," the New York Democrat said in a statement to Roll Call. "Short-changing security at U.S. embassies and missions would be short-sighted and penny-wise but pound-foolish."
Since the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, there has been a massive effort to build new embassies and refurbish existing properties that provide additional protection against attacks.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to brief lawmakers about diplomatic security challenges and the Middle East today, but it's obvious those needs conflict with the budget austerity that Congress has embraced.
Even as Senators raise concerns about embassy security funding and personnel after the recent rash of assaults against U.S. outposts, Congress has proposed spending reductions for Worldwide Security Protection, an umbrella account within the State Department budget that funds efforts to keep diplomats safe.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, said Wednesday that security should be beefed up, but he did not signal a push for more money.
"If I were president of the United States, I would send a unequivocal statement to the people in the region: If you attack our interests, there will be consequences," Graham said. "I would reinforce our embassies and our consulates, and I would get deeply involved with each nation to try to find a way to maintain a foothold on progress."
In the stand-alone State Department spending bills for the most recent and the current fiscal years, the Senate did try to fund the diplomatic security accounts at higher levels than the House - a result of the difference between each chambers' adopted spending levels.
Specifically, Senators proposed providing a total of $245 million more than the $2.96 billion offered by their House counterparts.
In a sign of the budget environment, however, even the Senate total - about $3.21 billion for the two years - fell short of the $3.44 billion the White House requested.
In the short term, none of those cuts are imminent because the government will be operating on a continuing resolution for the next six months, maintaining current levels. Separately, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that automatic budget cuts required by sequestration would trim the budget for embassy security and infrastructure by $129 million in 2013. Those automatic cuts are scheduled to take effect at the end of the year.
A House Republican aide stressed that House appropriators in both parties and both chambers are committed to providing the resources the State Department says it needs to protect American diplomats. However, the aide points out that security on the ground also must be negotiated with the host country.
Rep. Nita Lowey, the ranking member on the corresponding House Appropriations subcommittee, has been concerned about the reductions in State Department security funding.
"Security is paramount not only to the men and women serving our nation abroad, but also for the thousands of American citizens traveling or working overseas," the New York Democrat said in a statement to Roll Call. "Short-changing security at U.S. embassies and missions would be short-sighted and penny-wise but pound-foolish."
Since the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, there has been a massive effort to build new embassies and refurbish existing properties that provide additional protection against attacks.
StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)12. Good find.
What else is on the table if sequestration takes effect?
How much does the average American pay attention to the Federal Budget?
Maybe it is about time. This Austerity Cliff deal may lead to more of that...
spanone
(135,836 posts)15. oh, but they will, you can bet your ass they will. reTHUG politicians are shameless.