Sequestration, expected to kick in on March 1, would result in $85 billion in
cuts in financial year 2013 and a total of $1.2 trillion spread out over ten years. The sequestration is almost a certainty.
The approach of potentially disastrous cuts to the military did not
stop Congress from authorizing $60.2 billion in additional deficit
spending for Hurricane Sandy relief, a pork filled measure which includes
billions of dollars for road construction, FBI salaries, Head Start,
Smithsonian roof repairs, the National Park Service and the Kennedy
Space Center.
And now, President Obama is now pushing a
$50 billion stimulus plan as automatic budget cuts while at the same time blaming Republicans for the looming sequester; the sequester that was
his idea. Obama has had plenty of opportunities to avert sequestration, but has failed to do so.
The GOP has also been criticized in its handling of the issue. Jonathan Tobin, writing for Commentary Magazine, opines:
“… the idea that Republicans are
better off abandoning their principles is not one that will ensure their political survival. A lot of
the discussion about the GOP future
rightly revolves around the need to put forward new ideas rather than
to keep pounding the talking points of the past but a Republican Party
that no longer possesses the ability to stand up to Obama’s demagoguery
of these issues is not going to win in either 2014 or 2016. A defeat on
the sequester after the fiscal cliff collapse could presage even worse
to come as the president pursues the rest of his liberal agenda this
year. If Republicans are incapable of mounting a spirited defense of
their position that rejects the president’s false choices in which they
are depicted as defending millionaires at the expense of the middle
class and the poor, they might as well pack up and go home right now.”
So, how will the sequester
affect
U.S. diplomatic posts? According to Secretary of State John Kerry:
“These cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of
US government facilities overseas and ensure the safety of the
thousands of US diplomats serving the American people abroad.”
Similarly, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland
warned at a press briefing that “cuts of this magnitude would obviously
severely impact our ability to execute all of our vital missions
overseas, particularly in the areas of national security, diplomacy,
development.”
The following is a partial list of how diplomatic posts will likely be
impacted by the sequester:
- Efforts to ramp up diplomatic security abroad would be delayed
- $500 million would be cut from global security accounts
- Unspecified cuts would be made to international peacekeeping operations
- Counter narcotics programs, counter terrorism efforts, and non-proliferation activities would be reduced
- The State Department might not be able to effectively provide emergency services to Americans in trouble abroad
- Inability to properly vet visa applications
- Inability to issue passports to Americans in a timely manner
- With the recent uprisings in the Middle East and Africa, for
example, US personnel located in those countries would be much more
vulnerable
- Benghazi is only one of several dangerous US diplomatic posts and the US Embassy in Turkey was recently attacked.
Additionally, according to Undersecretary of State Pat Kennedy, over
half of US diplomatic posts around the world may not fully meet
security standards. Speaking
before
a House appropriations subcommittee, he elaborated, saying that, “many
of these facilities were built or acquired prior to the establishment of
the current security standards, and others are subject to authorized
waivers and/or exceptions.”
Under reciprocal treaty obligations, host nations have an obligation to provide security for the
diplomatic
facilities of the sending states. But, sometimes host nations are
unable or not completely committed to fulfilling this responsibility,
which can leave a US facility profoundly vulnerable.
Chicken flavored dog treats made in China may have caused severe digestive tract illnesses in over nine hundred reported canines. The FDA confirmed that complaints have continued to pour in. The agency stated it conducted an investigation. However, they do not normally screen or test pet food or treats.
