A Washington Post story carried in today's Democrat-Gazette, seems to imply that Rick Crawford thinks our country would be just fine without the FBI for a couple of years. Here's the relevant section (with the bits I'm talking about in bold):
"Crawford, a freshman legislator, said the president could cope with a full stop on U.S. borrowing by using incoming tax revenue to pay for the services he thinks are essential: soldiers, Medicare and Social Security, and interest on existing debt.
That approach, outside experts have said, might mean the government wouldn’t be able to afford the FBI, veterans’ benefits or other federal services.
That’s all right with Crawford.
'That wouldn’t work for just a few days. That would work for a few years,” said Crawford, who added that he would agree to raising the debt limit only if such a bill included major changes in federal budget priorities. Budget deficits, he said, require “that we take some painful measures now. I’d rather swallow that bitter pill today.'"
The question is whether or not Crawford was speaking specifically about the government not being able to afford the FBI, etc, or referring to the plan to allow Obama to pay for essential services with incoming tax revenue.
This section of the Post's story needs a little more clarity. I, for one would like to know. What we have is either a newspaper article that is structured to make it sound like a congressman thinks we don't need the FBI for a few years, or a congressman who actually does think that.
I would hate to see veterans not get their benefits but I would hardly put that in the same category as the FBI which has a hand in investigating many crimes, including homegrown terror plots, that are very relevant to the security of the general public. It's too late to contact his Washington office but I'll definitely be following up on this.