Rand Paul Foreign Aid Bill Stirs Foreign Policy Discussion
By W. E. Messamore | 09/21/2012 | Budget, Headline, Issues, Legislation, War and Foreign Policy | 45 Comments
Credit: Gage Skidmore
Senator Rand Paul (KY), introduced a bill Wednesday to cut off all Washington foreign aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt until certain conditions are met.
The bill is based on amendments Paul offered last week, “in light of recent aggression toward American consulates and embassies in these countries,” to strip the three countries of Washington foreign aid totaling $4 billion and divert $2 billion of that money to US military veterans’ programs, while leaving the remainder out of the federal budget to reduce the deficit.
The Kentucky senator threatened to filibuster all Senate business– including a $500 billion spending bill to fund the federal government for the next six months, and the confirmation of new ambassadors to Iraq and Pakistan– until his foreign aid bill is allotted a brief time for debate on the Senate floor and a full vote.
In the Washington Times op ed cited above, Senator Paul argued:
“American taxpayer dollars should not go to Libya until the murderers are delivered to justice. Nor should they go to Egypt until the Egyptians prove that they are willing and able to protect our embassy. Finally, not one more penny of American taxpayer dollars should go to Pakistan until the doctor who helped us get bin Laden is freed.
We should not reward bad behavior, yet that is what we’ve done with foreign aid for so many years. The total U.S. foreign aid given to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt equals roughly $4 billion per year. But enough is enough. So I have announced that I will block any and all legislation until Mr. Reid allows for a debate and vote on these foreign aid bills.”
The Rand Paul foreign aid amendments and this week’s foreign aid bill have stirred a foreign policy discussion and debate among lawmakers in Washington. Senator John Kerry (MA), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the Libyan and Egyptian governments were not responsible for the attacks on the US embassies, and that the United States has a role to play in fostering democratic government overseas:
“Whatever happened to the great commitment of the conservative movement in America to freedom and democracy and to help it develop? … What the heck?”
In a letter to Senate colleagues Tuesday, Paul addressed the argument that Libya and Egypt are not to blame for the recent embassy attacks, and suggested a compromise on his measures, writing:
“…significant cuts that are less than the full amount of foreign aid could be considered, coupled with redirecting a portion of the money into the improvement of security at our diplomatic facilities. If these countries cannot secure American lives and property, our increased cost of doing so must come out of the money set aside for aid.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) jabbed at the junior Kentucky senator: “I just think my friend from Kentucky maybe should have run for secretary of state rather than the Senate,” though spending priorities, including foreign spending, are not outside the purview of Congress.
In Rand Paul’s own party, Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) has been one of the sharpest critics of the Rand Paul foreign aid measures. Thursday, the South Carolina senator argued that cutting foreign aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt would threaten US national security:
“Rand Paul is one nice fellow, but I bet you he’s never talked with CIA Director General Petraeus about what would happen if we cut our aid off to Pakistan…
Here’s what I convey to my colleagues: don’t be indifferent: the people I want to give the aid to and support to are the ones that I have some hope that I can live with in peace. The radical Islamists know that they cannot win if we stay in the region.”
Earlier this year, Gallup reported that 71% of Egyptians oppose US aid to Egypt. Last year, Gallup reported that 59% of Americans favor cutting foreign aid, and more favored cutting foreign aid than any other category of Washington spending included in the survey, including, in order: “Funding for the arts and sciences, Aid to farmers, Homeland security, The military and national defense, anti-poverty programs, Medicare, Social Security, and Education.”
Over at Slate, Dave Weigel called cutting foreign aid to countries like Egypt and Libya “the next conservative cause,” and enjoined his readers to “Keep watching that meme.”





Leave Your Comment →
45 Comments
Lucas Eaves
09.21.2012
@lucaseaves
It is a tough question as cutting support to countries like Egypt or Libya when they are transitioning could have very undesirable effects in these country. I think that the US continuing their support in these trouble times is the option for the moment.
W. E. Messamore
09.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
Specifically what possible effects concern you?
Thomas Brown
09.21.2012
Foreign aid is a waste of money we do not have. I am with Rand on this issue and if the Senators who don’t share the idea of of Senator Paul of cutting off aid to these countries want to continue to fund these failed regimes how about they collect funds from their lobbyist pals and pay for it privately?
Matt Metzner
09.21.2012
@mmetzner
Definitely agree with Sen. Kerry and Sen. Graham here. Rand is not the person to be calling the shots on foreign aid allocation, he’s also not on any of the committees that oversee these issues.
Blaz Gutierrez
09.21.2012
@blazgutierrez
There’s also the issue of him threatening to filibuster on an incendiary issue. He’s identified a flashpoint and threatened to hold Congress hostage. It’s a counter-productive form of leadership.
Chavis
09.21.2012
While I understand the fear that not propping up the regimes will lead to an increase in violence against us, the fact of the matter is that we have been involving ourselves in the politics of that region to our detriment for a long, long time, and it has only made things worse.
At some point you need to stop hoping that there’s a set amount of money that will make religious fanatics love you, and start to believe that the best policy is to not be around them at all. It isn’t our constitutional obligation, nor is it our manifest destiny, to go around the world building friendly democracies. We were supposed to be a nation that avoided foreign entanglement and stuck to trade. It would be nice to get back to doing that again, instead of policing the world.
If you really want to know why the citizens of other countries don’t like us, ask yourself this. How does the general public in this country regard the police and federal agencies that police them? We need to get our noses out of other people’s sovereign business, and let them go about their own successes and failures. Get control of your fear, and urge your elected officials to stop meddling.
Lucas Eaves
09.21.2012
@lucaseaves
The United States have had that role of world cop for so long than any change in the US foreign policy will need to be done one step at a time as it would completely reshape international diplomacy. The proposals by Mr. Paul are too radical and their effects on american foreign policies would be disastrous.
W. E. Messamore
09.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
I agree that reforming foreign policy needs to be done one step at a time. But would you say this is a wholesale reform to US foreign policy, or a pretty minor, small, first step toward that end? The proposal, to recap, is simply to attach conditions for US foreign aid to just three countries. To be precise, it’s not even to end foreign aid to these three countries unconditionally; it’s actually the opposite– to stop funding them unconditionally. It’s to use foreign aid as the tool that it is, as a bargaining chip for better relations and better behavior from these countries.
I’d ask this: should all foreign aid be unconditional? Should the US continue sending $1 billion to Egypt even if it declares open war on Israel? Even if it commits genocide against an ethnic or religious minority? Surely most people would agree there’s some point when tax dollars shouldn’t be going to a government. There’s some line that, if crossed, should trigger an end to Washington aid. My question is: where is your line? And why don’t you draw the line where Senator Rand Paul does?
Alex Gauthier
09.21.2012
@alexg
I largely agree with you here on substance, but ripping off the foreign ‘band-aid’ is a lot harder than it seems. Simply walking away from the foreign relations game is inherently unrealistic. Approaching foreign policy now like its 1896 is foolish and ignores significant global realities.
W. E. Messamore
09.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
Would you call attaching conditions to US foreign aid to just three Middle Eastern countries (not even stripping aid unconditionally, but, as Rand’s proposal calls for: simply telling these countries they have to meet certain conditions to continue receiving aid), “walking away from the foreign relations game?” In my assessment, this is the opposite of walking away; it’s actually being very engaged and using the aid as a foreign relations tool to create better results. I would also assess attaching conditions to aid for three countries as a pretty modest change to foreign policy.
W. D. Smothers
09.22.2012
Good Message!!!
W. E. Messamore
09.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
That may count as a strike against Paul’s credibility on this issue, but looking at it the other way, is sitting on the committee or having years, even decades of involvement in foreign policy in the Senate really a badge of credibility at this point? After years of violence and instability overseas, rampant anti-US sentiment in the region, money funneled to governments that were unpopular, repressive and recently overthrown by their own people, only to be followed up with more money sent to the new military dictatorships that replaced them. With such an incoherent and, I would aver, often disastrous foreign policy, and such a low approval rating among voters for Congress, I don’t know that the people who’ve been sitting there the longest can claim any mantle of credibility over the fresh faces. I’d quibble that the Kentucky Senator isn’t trying to call the shots. He’s just trying to get his bill for a vote to let the entire Senate call the shots.
Brandon Fallon
09.21.2012
@bfallon
Removing foreign aid will provoke further instability in an already unstable region of the world. The US may be better off if they were more neutral in world affairs, but the US is already deeply involved in international diplomacy. They still have to protect the troops in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The changes in regimes in Libya and Egypt are still taking effect. As far as the anti-Islamic movie and the violence in Libya is concerned, the US is already investigating that and is going to punish whoever is behind it, but the Libyan government isn’t behind it.
If anything, is seemed that Obama was trying to ratchet down the military footprint in Afghanistan and rely more on covert ops and drone attacks. More on military intelligence and less on the number of boots on the ground. That is at least a step in the right direction.
Glenn Younger
09.21.2012
@Glenn Younger
We have been giving aid to countries that have not supported US policies for years. that does not make it the correct policy.
We have always used the same argument. If we don’t, they won’t work with us at all, or listen to our advice.
News flash; they are not listening to our advice, promoting policies that help our cause, or even being good world citizens. So the “let’s keep giving their governments money and eventually they and their people will love us” is not working. We’re in a hole; let’s stop digging.
At this point in time there is no downside for hostile governments to take the money and then do as they wish. Let’s make doing the wrong thing difficult. Let’s reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. Seems like a simple concept. The same ole same ole does not seem to be getting it done.
Van Akins
09.21.2012
@Van Akins
TWO FACED SOR (son of a republican) vote down the military bill only to come back with statements like this is typical for Republicans trying to Run or Ruin the world ,their way or no way ,I say VOTE OBAMA and stand with him mo matter which party you are.
Justin
09.23.2012
People like you will be chanting his name, even after he enacts marshall law and herds you into the fema camps for your own “safety”. So sad.
JK Spaeth
09.21.2012
My thoughts are as follows… No, the governments of Libya and Egypt are not directly responsible for the embassy attacks. They are indirectly responsible, as it is their responsibility to keep the peace in the streets and prevent murders and rioting. They have failed. Even with our aide they have failed to do anything to prevent this kind of backlash. As for Pakistan… its insane we are still Allies with them. They do not want to play ball, Pakistanis hate the West and its government is a corrupt failure that has long since fanned the flames of religious and geopolitical agitation. WHY are we giving so much aid to everyone in the world, especially to countries that don’t seem to be very thankful? End the aid… its the first, least drastic step.
Anthony Stott
09.21.2012
Doesn’t go far enough… foreign aid to Israel needs to be cut as well….
Micah Chaney
09.21.2012
Typical. This is an overreaction if there could’ve been one.
Chandler Stalvey
09.21.2012
The man is insane with no knowledge of foreign policy
Grace Murray
09.21.2012
Right now the Islamic militants & terrorists are in charge in these countries and Americans are not safe. We should be financially support this?
Micah Chaney
09.21.2012
Whoops…I wasn’t done with my comment.
1. If we remove all foreign aid, we effectively remove all influence short of the threat of war.
2. Removing aid would punish the millions of innocent Libyans, Egyptians, and Pakistanis for the crimes of a few.
3. Threatening to filibuster everything else is childish and has no place in the highest government body of the greatest country in history.
4. “$2 billion” “to reduce the deficit” and “$2 billion” “to veteran’s affairs” sounds like a cover for a hidden agenda. “Reduce the deficit” “Veteran’s Affairs”? Come on
JK Spaeth
09.21.2012
1. We can still trade with them, export our culture and have diplomatic relations. How come we have to pay-to-play?!
2. I agree with this… but the way our aid is set up it doesn’t much help the common citizenry anyway. Primarily it helps their governments buy more weapons and the food and medicine we send? The corrupt leaders sell that for more weapons and use the rest of the money to pay off their henchmen.
3. Rand Paul’s filibuster threat is weak-sauce political theater, he doesn’t have enough power in the Senate to pull that off. Not that he should threaten it, that’s just as bad as having his bill ignored by the leadership. Debate it, vote on it, move on…
4. Have you ever been involved in the VA system? 2 billion could go a long way — but obviously its more of a message than a way to fix our own money shortages. This plan goes a small way to enforcing the idea that ‘Our aid should first and foremost aid American citizens’.
Chandler Stalvey
09.21.2012
Anthony you are even worse off.
Micah Chaney
09.21.2012
So in a word…”No” I wouldn’t support this legislation…although, it should be debated without the childish threats.
Tom Stockwell
09.21.2012
We can use the money right here
Nicole Cumings GuBrath
09.21.2012
Cut a set amount across the board, don’t play favorites with certain countries.
Linda Hower Melones
09.21.2012
We need to help America first.
Nicole C Crecelius
09.21.2012
giving aid to these countries is like supporting terrrorists
Richard Griffin
09.21.2012
Absolutely. It’s a good start. I don’t work so that an already parasitic government can send my money to foreign governments, especially these types.
Richard Griffin
09.21.2012
What part of ‘we are broke’ suggests we should spread money around the globe?
Tyler Rasmussen
09.21.2012
Amen Richard.
Alexander Vale
09.21.2012
I would support this, because more often than not we just promote our own selfish interests, or make the bad situations there worse.
William Daniel Mcdonald
09.21.2012
those paul boys got it going on, shoulda been ron running against obama cause i dont thnk mitt is gonna pull it out
Kevin Harris
09.21.2012
YES, I support this legislation. Sending them our tax money has not prevented war with them so far! I don’t mind some limited foreign aid to our true allies, but to our enemies? No way. It’s beyond ludicrous, esp. when we are $16 Trillion in debt.
Mark Siskel
09.21.2012
We can’t cut Pakistan till we get our troops and equipment out of Afghanistan. Pakistan is the only realistic route out, unless we fight our way out through Iran 8-P. jk
Mani Malagón
09.21.2012
Well, in fact, ALL foreign “aid” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Rachael Williams
09.21.2012
Look at how the average Pakistani lives and how their leadership lives. Do you really think that aid goes to the people? If you are naive enough to think that foreign aid does anything other than pad the pockets of corrupt leaders, then it’s alarming that you vote.
Troy Escamilla
09.21.2012
Aren’t we 16 trillion in debt? Aren’t there record numbers of Americans in poverty? Keep the money here.
Donna McClure II
09.21.2012
Micah if never actually remove foreign aid it is not an influential tool and if the not guilty are inconvenienced maybe they will police their own guilty.paying them for their goodwill and cooperation obviously did not work
Kevin Harris
09.21.2012
We’ve basically been paying terrorist groups RENT so we can fight in Afghanistan! We need to get the hell out of there, and stop paying those thugs.
Tony Bridgeforth
09.21.2012
don’t give money to people who like us and kill our people for no reason
Daniel L. Johnson
09.21.2012
We NEED! to continue aid to Israel … They are not supporting terrorists who attack us…
W. D. Smothers
09.22.2012
We agree with Rand Paul’s bill 100%..We believe that all funds to Egypt, Libya, and all these Arab countries should be STOPPED IMMEDIATELY..Also Sen. Graham needs to sit down and be silent..
Peggy Atjkinson
11.08.2012
What is wrong with you politicians? We are 16 trillion dollars in debt, and you are borrowing more to send to foreign countries. Our only ally is Isreal. We shouldn’t send foreign aid to any other countries, period. Money ends up in the pockets of some radical dictator, and doesn’t help the people there at all. And it sure doesn’t do anything to help the United States.