In the abstract they’re for it

Let’s see what Republicans have to say about the issues of the day. First there’s gun control:

New York Representative Thomas Reed, a Republican and NRA member who  went hunting just last week, said the emotions were still too raw. In time, he said, a “robust debate” will take place, but he urged that the discussion include access to mental health services.

“If all we’re going to be talking about is gun control — well, it needs to be more than that,” said Reed.

He’s certainly right that there needs to be more done for mental health, he must be a big proponent of healthcare:

The main components of the proposal are spending reduction, welfare reform (such as Medicaid block grants), health and retirement security, Social Security solvency, budget enforcement, and comprehensive tax simplification.

“I understand we will be dealing with some very complex issues, like entitlement program reform,” Reed said. “It’s certainly not easy, and we will have to dig deep to find some real solutions. But we cannot continue to hide from the problem. We are taking the initiative because prior leadership failed to do so, and now we have no more options, nowhere left to go. We will not continue to jeopardize the future of our country just because we don’t feel like dealing with difficult issues.”

Umm, so he wants to make sure there is more access to mental health care by cutting healthcare. Interesting.

How about Benghazi:

“The failure of leadership is unacceptable,” Representative Tom Rooney, a Florida Republican and member of both the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees, said in response to the findings. “We need stronger leadership at the State Department, we need the administration to heed warnings from the intelligence community, and we need significantly better security at our diplomatic posts around the world.”

Among the report’s recommendations:

■ Strengthen security at foreign posts, including increasing the security budget to $2.2 billion by 2015;

If he’s like most Republicans, he wants to cut funding for the security budget:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

You might notice this general pattern: Republicans call for a solution in a certain way and then don’t pay for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: