By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the House has extended funding for lawmakers’ personal security. The program, initially implemented after a shooting involving Minnesota state lawmakers, offers up to $10,000 monthly for personal security and $20,000 for home security. This extension will remain in effect until November 21st. House Speaker Mike Johnson has assured the public that Congress is actively exploring long-term security solutions for its members following the tragic event.
Read the original article here
House extends lawmakers’ security funding after Kirk assassination, and the reactions are, to put it mildly, intense. It’s fascinating, isn’t it, how quickly the gears turn when the safety of those in power is at stake? The sentiment seems to be a resounding: “They can pass legislation no problem when it comes to protecting themselves. But not for anyone else.” The contrast is stark. You have lawmakers, with their immediate calls for increased security funding, and then the grim reality of school shootings that have been happening with alarming frequency, with calls for better security falling on deaf ears.
The immediate response of many seems to be cynicism. There’s a strong undercurrent of “after the fact” outrage, along the lines of “Now?! You increase it *now*?!?” when the focus shifts to the potential vulnerability of the lawmakers themselves. It is pointed out that this quick action is in stark contrast to the lack of similar urgency demonstrated after school shootings, where children are sitting ducks. The implication is clear: lawmakers prioritize their own safety above all else. The suggestion of redirecting funds from lawmakers’ security to schools, echoing Senator Cruz’s door suggestion, is a recurring theme, highlighting the perceived imbalance.
This focus on self-preservation is met with accusations of hypocrisy. The irony of lawmakers voting to secure themselves while potentially opposing measures to protect schools isn’t lost on anyone. “We should not be forced to live in fear over our own words!” But not for Kamala. Not for John Bolton. Only for themselves. Cowards. This selective application of safety nets leads to a feeling of unfairness, that the rules don’t apply equally. The “protection for thee, but not for weeeee” is a perfect summary. This is particularly galling when the argument for increased gun control is met with the same lawmakers, using guns to protect themselves.
The circumstances surrounding the security funding also raise questions about the motivations behind it. The fact that the funding increase happened in response to the killing of Kirk, a private citizen, is also questioned. The question is asked, what does this have to do with lawmakers? If someone who isn’t an elected official can trigger a security response, then where are the parameters? There’s also the suggestion that the security concerns are politically motivated, with a focus on protecting certain figures while others, like progressives, might be left to fend for themselves.
The emphasis on personal safety also brings up the broader issue of political polarization. The idea that “These motherfuckers never miss an opportunity to take care of themselves first” is frequently mentioned. This sentiment suggests a deep distrust of the motives of those in power, and a belief that they are primarily concerned with their own well-being, at the expense of their constituents. This distrust likely extends to the proposed solutions as well, with skepticism about whether additional security measures will actually address the root causes of the issues. “What would more security do? Look in every widow and rooftop within 300 yards? Just for republicans I assume.”
The reaction also points to a deeper frustration with the political process. The focus on “more security” rather than addressing the reasons for radicalization is seen as a superficial response, failing to address the underlying issues driving violence. This sense of the public being “sold out” or “left behind” fuels the cynicism, particularly when contrasted with the perceived self-interest of those in power. This is reflected in comments about the waste of public money, the idea of being “fucked over” by lawmakers, and the sense that politicians are out of touch with the struggles of ordinary people.
The question of whether the funding increase is limited to Republicans is also crucial. “Protection for themselves, but not kids being murdered in schools,” again highlights this perception of a double standard. It also points to a belief that the security measures are being implemented selectively, further fueling the sense of injustice. The point is made that it wasn’t even extended to Melissa Hortman.
The whole situation boils down to a sense of outrage. The anger is directed at the perceived self-interest of lawmakers, the double standards they are accused of applying, and the perceived failure to address the underlying causes of violence. The cynicism is born from a lack of trust in the political system, and a feeling that those in power are more concerned with protecting themselves than with serving the interests of their constituents.