Was than an “oops” (again) we just heard from Rick Perry?
It appears the Texas governor may have “stepped in it” (again) in last night’s CBS News presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy.
Perry proposed a zero-based budgeting approach to U.S. foreign aid, starting each nation’s foreign aid from scratch every year before allocating new funds. Even, he said, with special allies such as Israel.
That puts Perry in an odd spot regarding the Republican presidential race, as conservatives have increasingly moved toward a hardcore pro-Israel stance.
In fact, House leader Eric Cantor has proposed that assistance to Israel be included directly in the Pentagon budget.
At the Daily Beast, Perry was pummeled over his proposal by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, and columnist Michael Tomasky.
Reidel said Perry’s plan would leave Israel vulnerable and could eventually benefit Iran.
Here’s a portion of his column:
“Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to start each year with zero dollars in foreign aid allocated for Israel and all other countries would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security. Perry’s idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs.
“For the last three decades, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) planners have relied on roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid annually to build a modern military with a qualitative advantage over all of Israel’s enemies. The IDF knows it can plan multiyear purchases of jet aircraft like F15s and other weapons because U.S. aid will be certain for years ahead. Planners love certainty about everything, but especially budgets.”
If anything, Tomasky was even tougher on Perry:
“Rick Perry remembered what he wanted to say about foreign aid, at least, so that was a plus, but his idea of starting every country at zero is silly and demagogic, and not just because of Israel.
Nativist politicians have always bashed foreign aid, of course: ‘Why in the-hell should we be a-spendin’ good money over there…etcetera. Politicians who have more sense than that typically don’t have the courage to stand up and say things like: Foreign aid serves a grand and important purpose, and if anything we should triple it.
And we should. It’s well known to people who actually bother to know things — just as it’s poorly known among the broader public — that foreign aid comes to 1 or 1.5 percent of the budget.
A taxpayer who earns $50,000 and pays around $6,900 in federal taxes, which is a typical or average amount, pays $1,375 to support the Pentagon; $1,335 for Social Security; $173 toward law enforcement and homeland security; $57 on agricultural subsidies; and $42 on foreign aid.
Barack Obama, to his credit, largely tried to spare foreign aid programs from the knife in his 2012 budget, but there’s every reason to think that it will emerge from the supercommittee in tatters, that is if the supercommittee presents a plan.
