Posted on 11/12/2011 9:45:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would cut the United States' foreign aid budget to zero and then allocate taxpayer dollars depending on each country's support for America, indicating that Pakistan would no longer receive U.S. aid but Israel would.
"It's time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the United States of America," Perry said.
His idea received support from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich but, in the case of Pakistan, was opposed by Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum at the CBS News/National Journal debate in Spartanburg, S.C.
Perry made his comments during a discussion on Pakistan. The American relationship with that country has become strained since the covert operation by U.S. Marines killed Osama bin Laden, who had been hiding in the country for years.
In explaining his agreement with Perry, Gingrich appeared to indicate that no thought goes into deciding how much aid each country receives.
"Consider the alternative," Gingrich said. "You're giving some country $7 billion a year. You start off-- or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year -- you start off every year and say here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking? You ought to start off at zero and say, explain to me why I should give you a penny."
Bachmann, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, depicted foreign aid for Pakistan as a national security issue.
"I would reduce foreign aid to many, many countries, but there's a problem because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon," Bachmann said. "We have more people affiliated with al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any other nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Good start. But I would like to see the US out of NATO and,the Holy Grail of wishes, The UN.
Cut all aid to countries that are not with us. And I would warn Israel that nothing is permament either.
I would put foreign aid in the following nonexclusive categories:
1> Charity. Most of this should be ended as NGOs can deliver it better and outside of the federal budget.
2> Payments not to be our enemies (tribute). These monies should be evaluated on a cost benefit relationship. i.e. will going to war with these powers be more costly than the tribute.
3> Subsidies to allies. Again needs to be evaluated on a cost to value relationship.
Remember that aid to a countries can fall into multiple categories.
Why did you add a patently false parenthetical to the title? When specifically asked about whether zero applied to Israel, he said yes.
I prefer someone who has some good ideas and is willing to actually do them more than someone who has it all on the tip of his tongue.
I must be a minority though if you look at all the great, glib liars we have elected over the years (both President and the Congress).
Perry is a cartoon character. His response on foreign aid was simplistic and dangerous.
“I would reduce foreign aid to many, many countries, but there’s a problem because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon,” Bachmann said. “We have more people affiliated with al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any other nation.”
Sorry, that mindset won’t fly: the 800-lb gorilla should not be paying protection money to a punk. If expediency and pragmatism guides her foreign policy decisionmaking, she has no business in the White House.
Colonel, USAFR
If you cut off aid to Pakistan, what kind of reaction do you think we will get if we want to transit Pakistan to support Afghanistan as we are doing now? There are good, strategic reasons for providing Pakistan with foreign aid, most of it military assistance.
Sorry, I don’t think Obama was ‘all that’ a great debator.
He’s not. McCain was horrible. However, zero’s teleprompter is a fantastic debater. With a army of people feeding it information. Keep that out of the debates and you might have something.
I highly doubt Zero would agree to any debate that did not have a friendly moderator.
Well, at least he got this one right.
Bachmann is living in the real world. You aren't. We have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. They need logistical support. Much of it transits Pakistan. We have been using foreign aid to Pakistan and other countries in the region to get basing rights and other considerations as part of our logistical support to wage war against AQ.
Pragmatism is and has always been a part of our foreign policy. I say that advisedly having served as a diplomat for over 28 years. Bachmann and Santorum were the only ones who seem to understand how the real world operates when it comes to foreign policy.
I was disturbed by many of the remarks made by the candidates during the debate. They should be reminded that their comments are not only being viewed and heard domestically, but globally as well.
I didn’t say pragmatism should not be a consideration, I said it shouldn’t guide her FP decisionmaking. As a military type who has spent many years overseas, in Pakistan and in Latin America, I know about getting along with the host country and what the boots on the ground have to deal with. Extortion is extortion, and to pay it makes us appear even weaker than the world thinks we are already. If Pakistan - or any other nation - wants our money, they need to be held accountable for their actions.
Colonel, USAFR
I think it’s sad and I just wish he’d go away now. He’s simply depressing at this point. No one wants to hurt his feelings and tell him it’s over. It’s all very cruel, IMHO.
Using loaded words like extortion just distorts the discussion. We use foreign aid as a quid pro quo to attain our foreign policy objectives. For example, the foreign aid we give to Egypt was really part of the price we paid to get the Camp David Accords that stabilized relations between Egypt and Israel for over 30 years.
We hold nations accountable for their actions whether they receive foreign aid or not. Much of it is done in private through diplomatic channels. If you recall, we cut off aid to Pakistan in 1979 when they developed a nuclear weapon. We even refused to give them weapons they had already purchased. We resumed aid after the Soviet invasion of Afganistan so we could use Pakistan to provide covert assistance to the Afghans. We drastically reduced aid in the decade of the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union.
I was personally involved in negotiations with the Pakistanis to provide reimbursement for the burning down of our embassy in Islamabad in 1979. Pakistan is not an ally, but neither is it an enemy. The political situation in the country is complex and unstable. Still, we must develop a stable bilateral relationship given the strategic interests we have in the region. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and radical Islamic elements within the country, including in the ISI. It is a very dangerous situation, which we should not exacerbate with inflammatory rhetoric. It is counterproductive.
My preference is a five year plan for all countries receiving recurring foreign aid, including Israel.
After one year, the amount received is 80% of the current amount. After two years, it is 60%. And so forth.
After five years, no more. Zip, zero, zilch, nada.
It’s long past time for regular recipients to be weaned from sucking on the U.S. taxpayer teat.
I am pretty sure that Perry clarified that EVERY nation would start at ZERO. He then used words that indicated that Israel would get Aid money fairly quickly since they are able to justify such funds.
The amount of AID money that is squandered in the whole World would clean up our debt in less than 2 years.
I like the ZERO base start for countries & they have to justify why they should get any money from us.
Lots of savings in the sentence alone.
I didn’t intend to imply that foreign aid is never appropriate, but rather that it is as good a stick as it is a carrot and that (forgive me, I can’t help it) the striped pants crowd at Foggy Bottom spends too much time worrying about giving offense and not enough time making nations accountable for their actions and/or failures to act. I have no problem at all with Perry’s statement that all foreign aid starts at zero dollars and that nations earn the privilege of receiving US dollars. You and I would likely agree on the major points of any negotiating problem, we would simply have different methods of achieving the ends.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The headline should properly address Perry's statement, say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the United States of America. GWB spoke of this early on, but 9/11 changed our foreign affairs dramatically.
How is repeatedly conducing espionage on the U.S. (google AIPAC scandal, Jonathan Pollard for starters) “supporting the United States?” Just asking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.