Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

House Bill Would Slash Foreign Aid

July 19, 2013 by  

House Bill Would Slash Foreign Aid
PHOTOS.COM

House Republicans, on Thursday, introduced a spending proposal that would cut U.S. foreign aid expenditures by 26 percent and deny funding to implement the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Starting in October, the bill would allot $17.3 billion for foreign aid, $5.8 billion less than the previous spending bill allowed. The cuts would also affect the State Department, slashing the diplomatic agency’s operating budget by $2.4 billion to $14.6 billion.

House lawmakers say the spending cuts are aimed at eliminating lower-priority diplomatic programs and expenditures that the Federal government simply can’t afford at this time.

“Given all of the country’s needs and fiscal realities, we must prioritize our very limited funds on only the most important international activities,” said the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Representative Hal Rogers (R-Ky.).

The bill prioritizes funding on overseas security efforts, and it would set aside $6.5 billion for war-related costs of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would also provide full funding for embassy security in the wake of attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts last year, assistance to key foreign allies, programs to promote democracy abroad and help for refugees and other humanitarian efforts.

“We live in a time of uncertainty and instability around the globe, and it is vital to our national security and well-being that the United States maintains an active role in global affairs. However, given all of the country’s needs and fiscal realities, we must prioritize our very limited funds on only the most important international activities. This bill makes these hard choices, maintaining critical missions, diplomatic efforts, and the safety and security of Americans abroad, while cutting lower-priority programs or those that we simply cannot afford at this time,” Rogers said.

The bill also puts tough conditions in place for foreign assistance for Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and the Palestinians. For example, echoing calls from lawmakers like Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the bill would withhold economic and security assistance if the Egypt government fails to adhere to the peace treaty with Israel or does not meet other conditions in support of Egypt’s democratic transition.

While the bill is full of provisions popular with American conservatives, it’s unlikely that it will ever become law because of objections from State Department and other top Administration officials.

“We are very concerned,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said during a press conference. “These proposed cuts, which would be devastating if put into effect, would hurt our ability to stand up for American interests and values around the world. The U.S. can’t lead if we retreat in this way.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “House Bill Would Slash Foreign Aid”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Sarah Conner

    Yeah right,these are common sense cuts…not like the pick and choose sequester cuts obozo makes to downsize our military…according to American Law,Egypt can no longer receive aid of any kind from the U.S….they had a ‘military coup’,doesn’t matter what obozo says…

  • Gib74

    It doesn’t matter if State Department personnel or zer0’s administration don’t like the cuts. It’s why we have the House to decide that, not them.

    • Vigilant

      The House doesn’t decide alone. It requires Senate approval and the President’s signature.

      • Alan

        True but the presidents veto can be over riden.

        • Vigilant

          In principle, yes. In reality, exceptionally unlikely. To pass a bill over the president’s objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

          Those votes don’t exist in either the House or the Senate.

          • Alan

            Votes may exist in the house, but you are right about the senate, especially under commandante Reid.

          • Vigilant

            The 113th Congress has 201 Dems and 234 Repubs, not nearly enough to override.

  • Vigilant

    How does the House deny funding to implement the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty when the treaty is not law to begin with? .Earlier this month, In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

    BTW, the vote was 100% Democrat/Independent in favor of implementing the treaty. Don’t tell me the Dems and Repubs are birds of a feather after that vote. Without the Repub vote, we’d be living under that unconstitutional treaty right now.

    • me

      Does it matter to polititions if it is constitutional or not to a lot of them? I don’t think so. Seems in this day and age they have put themselves into something like royalty with the power to decide what we can have and what we can do. the original constitution had a different plan than what is being carried out now. there was an original 13th amendment which would have prevented royalty, but the war of 1812 stopped it from going thru. look it up. Lawyers weren’t even supposed to be in politics if it would have went thru. The very wealthy have become the main benificiaries of power in this country. the original 13th amendment would have stopped this. I read the Bank of England was behind the war of 1812. Nowadays they are still at the top over all of our financial institutions. the fed is a branch. scary, huh? Go online and look up “Financial Tyranny”,. It tells alll about our financial mess.

      • Vigilant

        The original 13th Amendment was a restatement of Article I, Section 9 (8), which reads, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

        The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

        “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

        Ergo, when you say “there was an original 13th amendment which would have prevented royalty,” the amendment as such was redundant since the original Constitutional article prevents it anyway. The 13th was different only in that it would bar citizenship to those so “honoured.”

        And to say that US lawyers using the term “Esq.” are loyal to foreign governments is ludicrous.

        As for “The very wealthy have become the main benificiaries of power in this country,” you would be naïve to think that’s something new. It has ALWAYS been that way in history, regardless of form of government.

  • WiSe GuY

    Cut all aid, if the foreigners don’t like it, go mooch elsewhere.

  • KennyLLC

    What’s so hard about this.
    If they are involved in the jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood they should be opposed, not supported.
    Their declared directives of “The Project” found in Switzerland, written in Arabic as their “Point’s of Departure” are blatant directions for jihadi’s to maintain a state of war against the west.:
    http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/687.pdf

    Oh I forgot. Obama is one of the Muslim Brotherhood:
    http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates

    Nevermind.

    “The United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam.”

    “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
    – Barack Hussein Obama

  • Alan

    Sending aid to many of these countries is like flushing it down the toilet. Most of the money is sucked up by corrupt leaders before it reaches its intended purpose.

  • Bill

    They should slash it by 100%

  • Bill

    Giving money to poor countries usually means taking money from the poor in a rich country and giving it to the rich in a poor country

  • Bob in Florida

    Foreign Aid is like charity. You give what you can, when you can, to those people or efforts that you feel are worthy of your assistance.
    When times get tough, you forgo some of that assistance, to take care of your own family needs.
    Times are tough and we have needs here at home that are far more critical right now than assistance for those who, in some cases, not only don’t like us, but are actually doing whatever they can to hurt us and or our interests.
    Why would we want to give aid and comfort to such countries?

  • Jimmy the Greek

    All Forgien aid need”s to be stoped ! if a county needs help send a few ships filled with food !

  • IsThisAmerica

    “The US can’t lead if we retreat in this way”. I did not know we had a leader. I agree, only help Israel if they need it. Everyone else seems to be just fine. (Except US of course). Our infrastruture needs serious help. Our dams and roads and bridges need either repair or to be newly built. I don’t get where out of the blue everything costs so much. Taxes are already sky high and he wants to raise them even more.

  • Richard

    Foreign aid now has only one purpose only, there is a hushed up currency war going on. The Federal Reserve is behind it to keep the U S dollar accepted worldwide so that it won’t collapse to the Euro or the Yuan. Countries like Libya,Iran want to be paid fro their oil with gold or another form of currency than the falling U S dollar. That’s why Khadafi is dead.

  • Dave

    US had a 119B surplus in June. I know you conservatives will be giving credit to Obama anytime now. Without the Bush tax cuts fir the wealth now less and we are adding jobs not bleeding jobs like we were at the end of the Bush conservative disaster.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.