You can't make this up: To fund border wall, Trump weighs cuts to Coast Guard, airport security

[Meghan54]

Really? Cut the Coast Guard's capabilities to fund the U.S.'s version of the Maginot Line? That makes sense exactly how? Even considering these cuts is just cutting off your nose to spite your face, and certainly isn't going to make our country safer nor better.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-guard-airport-security/ar-AAnZUxF?li=BBnb7Kz

The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.

The proposal, drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also would slash the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provides disaster relief after hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. The Coast Guard’s $9.1 billion budget in 2017 would be cut 14 percent to about $7.8 billion, while the TSA and FEMA budgets would be reduced about 11 percent each to $4.5 billion and $3.6 billion, respectively.

The Coast Guard cuts include deactivating Maritime Security Response Teams, which carry out counterterrorism patrols in ports and sensitive waterways...

At the TSA, the proposed budget cuts would eliminate four programs that cost the agency $187 million.

Training for what is known as the “armed pilot” program, begun after 9/11, would be eliminated at a savings of $20 million.

An additional $57 million would be saved by cutting a program that sends armed teams of highly trained, uniformed agents to sweep airports, train stations and bus terminals.

The $45 million in grants that local law enforcement uses to patrol in and around airports also would be eliminated.

The fourth program slated for elimination uses specially trained TSA agents to watch passenger behavior in airports, and particularly as fliers approach checkpoints, to single out those who appear to behave oddly.

The budget proposal said $65 million also could be saved by eliminating that Behavior Detection Officer program. ...it provided a “crucial layer of security” that brought 2,116 passengers to the attention of law enforcement in 2012, resulting in 30 boarding denials and 183 arrests.

At FEMA, a corner of the federal government whose budgets were beefed up after the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, the proposed cuts would slash some programs whose effectiveness has long come under criticism. Research into bio-surveillance threats and other research and development work that gets tens of millions of dollars in federal funding a year would take a 28 percent hit.

But the spending plan — which could cut $361 million from FEMA’s $3.5 billion budget — also eliminates or reduces the federal commitment to helping states and local governments prepare for natural disasters through training, salaries and benefits for staff, coordination and state-of the-art equipment. These grants help communities prepare for emergencies so that local and state governments can coordinate and respond quickly.

 

[ivwshane]

I bet if he were to cut ICE's funding completely he could find the money for the wall. After all, what good would ICE be if we have a wall that keep illegals out?







/s

 

[sandorski]

People trying to make their Lives better are more dangerous than Terrorists.

Everybody knows this!

 

[khon]

Maybe Trump isn't aware that Mexico also has boats and planes ?

 

[Grooveriding]

The strategy is build the wall, making the Cartels more reliant on their submarines and illegal immigrants more likely to use boats. Then in a magnificent pincer of Trump logic, reduce funding to the organization responsible for monitoring the coasts. Trump logic!

I expect I'll see that wall, if it gets built, torn down or left to neglect in my lifetime. After Dump is gone, not many will want a monument to his, and his voters, stupidity left standing to remind people of the historical shitshow that was Hair Furor.

 

[mxnerd]

I remembered that Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall.

 

[Black Octagon]

I remembered that Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall.

Exactly. Maybe he thinks the U.S. coast guard is part of Mexico

 

[woolfe9998]

Cutting the coast guard will make it easier for illegals to come by boat. And cutting airport security will increase the risk of terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft. I thought Trump was going to protect us from illegals and terrorists.

Doh!

 

[mikeymikec]

Well obviously he's going to defund the coastguard and airport security. In Trump's game of wall vs. anything, wall always wins.

Maybe after the wall comes the giant wooden badger?

 

[trenchfoot]

I remembered that Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall.

Well they are going to pay for the wall, but just not in the way you'd logically assume what Trump meant to say when he kept repeating that well known refrain over and over again at every single rally he held.

His surrogates somehow knew exactly what he meant to say, although if you ask each one of them you'd get a different version of it.

And the folks who voted for him based on that startling declaration of his also know exactly what he meant by that. Just ask them, they'll tell you without a single nervous blink or a twitch of the lip that you're not going to fully understand what Trump meant to say because what he said wasn't what you'd really think he meant exactly, even though the Mexicans are actually going to pay for the wall after all is said and done.

You see, they all know what Trump meant, it's just that they'll tell you what you heard from Trump can be easily misunderstood because what he meant to say when he said what he said can only be truly understood if you voted for him. Otherwise, for sure you'd take what he said the wrong way, which is that Mexico was going to pay for the wall in cash and on demand. Wrong. You have to take what Trump said and run it through a series of Conservative Speak filters in order to get on the right track, which is a highly confidential process that is closely guarded but well known among Trump's supporters.

For the rest of us, we have to understand that what Trump actually meant to say was that "Mexico was going to pay for the wall.........One way or another." The problem is that only Trump's supporters know what that is but they're not ever going to let on about that until after it actually happens, if ever.

 

[mxnerd]

Well they are going to pay for the wall, but just not in the way you'd logically assume what Trump meant to say when he kept repeating that well known refrain over and over again at every single rally he held.

His surrogates somehow knew exactly what he meant to say, although if you ask each one of them you'd get a different version of it.

And the folks who voted for him based on that startling declaration of his also know exactly what he meant by that. Just ask them, they'll tell you without a single nervous blink or a twitch of the lip that you're not going to fully understand what Trump meant to say because what he said wasn't what you'd really think he meant exactly, even though the Mexicans are actually going to pay for the wall after all is said and done.

You see, they all know what Trump meant, it's just that they'll tell you what you heard from Trump can be easily misunderstood because what he meant to say when he said what he said can only be truly understood if you voted for him. Otherwise, for sure you'd take what he said the wrong way, which is that Mexico was going to pay for the wall in cash and on demand. Wrong. You have to take what Trump said and run it through a series of Conservative Speak filters in order to get on the right track, which is a highly confidential process that is closely guarded but well known among Trump's supporters.

For the rest of us, we have to understand that what Trump actually meant to say was that "Mexico was going to pay for the wall.........One way or another." The problem is that only Trump's supporters know what that is but they're not ever going to let on about that until after it actually happens, if ever.

Hahaha, We have a POTUS who always flip-flops his own words in a snap. You never know which one really count. Or probably none of them counts?

If we lived in the old days without computer & internet and Trump being the POTUS, newspaper publishers probably would to have to have early morning, afternoon & midnight prints, just for ever-changing White House press.

 

[trenchfoot]

Hahaha, We have a POTUS who always flip-flops his own words in a snap. You never know which one really count. Or probably none of them counts?

If we lived in the old days without computer & internet and Trump being the POTUS, newspaper publishers probably would to have to have early morning, afternoon & midnight prints, just for ever-changing White House press.

Trump is operating under the principle that it's much much harder to pin down a fish that's furiously flopping around once you get him in the boat. Add to that the fact that he's also a slippery slimy eel that will tie itself into a knot once you get a hook in him.

 

[sdifox]

Ice pick works wonders on eels.

 

[Exterous]

And cutting airport security will increase the risk of terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft.

There is absolutely 0 evidence that airport security has stopped terrorist attacks. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that airport security is completely and utterly inept at their jobs despite the billions in funding they get. After their 91% failure rate they asked for more money and they got it. The result? A 95% failure rate. This is also the same group that decided it would mandate more fondling of US citizens because it was too difficult for their agents to decide how much groping to do on their own

Have we really gotten to the point where this site is so anti-Trump that they'll defend airport security and its funding? I would think that last program specifically should be hailed as a cut since it there is a decent amount of evidence that it disproportionally targets muslims

 

[K1052]

That big of a cut at TSA will significantly affect staffing. Remember last year when they were short of staff because congress didn't appropriate enough money for them and the security lines at airports got insanely long while tons of very very angry people missed flights? Don't worry though since the Donald has flown private for decades and now gets AF1, he'll be ok.

 

[ch33zw1z]

There is absolutely 0 evidence that airport security has stopped terrorist attacks. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that airport security is completely and utterly inept at their jobs despite the billions in funding they get. After their 91% failure rate they asked for more money and they got it. The result? A 95% failure rate.

Have we really gotten to the point where this site is so anti-Trump that they'll defend airport security and its funding?

I was kinda thinking the same thing. The TSA is not cool man.

Coast Guard, however, is definitely valuable.

I think the bigger issue here is the continued broken promises, and were only 60 days in.

"Mexico's going to pay for it"

Trump supporters go gaga over this, even though there's way more in play than they can actually ascertain.

 

[K1052]

There is absolutely 0 evidence that airport security has stopped terrorist attacks. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that airport security is completely and utterly inept at their jobs despite the billions in funding they get. After their 91% failure rate they asked for more money and they got it. The result? A 95% failure rate. This is also the same group that decided it would mandate more fondling of US citizens because it was too difficult for their agents to decide how much groping to do

Have we really gotten to the point where this site is so anti-Trump that they'll defend airport security and its funding?

TSA is not likely to alter any standards or processes, they'll simply reduce the number of people it can screen commensurate with their lower budget. Revamping how airport security is implemented (a worthwhile argument) and funding it are kind of two different discussions.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It will mean longer lines, and more targeted screenings through profiling. If youre affluent and white, you'll get airport ezpass

 

[Exterous]

It will mean longer lines, and more targeted screenings through profiling. If youre affluent and white, you'll get airport ezpass

That big of a cut at TSA will significantly affect staffing. Remember last year when they were short of staff because congress didn't appropriate enough money for them and the security lines at airports got insanely long while tons of very very angry people missed flights? Don't worry though since the Donald has flown private for decades and now gets AF1, he'll be ok.

If you read the proposed cuts none of them have to do with staffing of the actual TSA lines. Not sure how having fewer armed pilots affects the security lines at the airports

 

[Balt]

Well, we're also going to have 'extreme vetting' despite Trump's proposal to cut the State Dept's budget by 37%.

So yeah. Logic may not be his strong suit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yea, there's 4 programs specifically...but we know how these things go. I'm not confident this will make it.

The TSA cuts are only 187 million. It's the CG that's more troublesome.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well, we're also going to have 'extreme vetting' despite Trump's proposal to cut the State Dept's budget by 37%.

So yeah. Logic may not be his strong suit.

Just a shitload of unpaid interns

 

[Exterous]

The TSA cuts are only 187 million. It's the CG that's more troublesome.

And FEMA

 

[K1052]

If you read the proposed cuts none of them have to do with staffing of the actual TSA lines. Not sure how having fewer armed pilots affects the security lines at the airports

TSA had to move money from other programs into screening last year to beef up staffing. Reducing the overall agency budget will remove some or all of that ability. If congress sets a funding level at or below what it originally did for 2016 the problem will most likely recur at peak travel season.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And FEMA

My personal experience with FEMA is tricky. I live in western MA. in June 2011 we suffered a Tornado which had a 40 mile path, and destroyed the center of our small town. then October 2011, the entire northeast was hit by a snow storm that left many without power for at least a week, took down thousands of trees....just wrecked us.

FEMA was extremely particular in both cases how they would help. Literally driving behind cleanup crews counting which trees were covered and which the town had to pay for. Our town has a 30 million budget....we're still paying off the bills.

I know there's value there, in FEMA, we were kinda scorned by them (in my eyes).

I don't support cuts to each at all, for this cause. Besides, Mexico's gonna pay for it...it was a campaign promise.