Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Should they be provided security?

We already have some members of congress saying they should have security. What do you think? Do you think tax dollars should pay for all congress to have security? Should they just stop having town halls?

Answer Question

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 9:08 AM on Jan. 9, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (12)
  • I thought they already had security (police details at minimum) during public events?

    Answer by LoriKeet at 9:10 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • I believe only the top members have security. It's up to them whether or not they seek local security when they have activities such as town halls

    Comment by itsmesteph11 (original poster) at 9:15 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide security for members of Congress. There are 435 members of congress and another 100 senators - that's a LOT of money on security!! If a representative is being threatened, they need to hire their own security details. There also isn't any reason why they couldn't use local law enforcement for public events.

    Answer by Scuba at 9:16 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • I don't know. It makes them unapproachable as a representative of the people they promised to listen to. She was home, where she felt comfortable, trying to reach out and has dialog with the people she represented. She was doing what the populous said they wanted during the last election. We said in our votes, "Come, talk to us, listen to us, be our voice, and vote the way we tell you we want you to vote." I have to admire that effort. If there is tight security, then that effort was shut down before it ever got a chance to work because of one sick young man.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:18 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • ***have a dialog***


    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:18 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • They have access to their local police like any other citizen does when under threat. I dont think they should have secret service types around them. The whole point of having reps and congress critters is so the people can have access to them so they can be representing their people when they go back to Washington. Just because one shooting has taken place against one congressperson since the 70s is not a reason to change any policy we have now. Instead the President and both houses should start working together for the people, and stop making this country so divided.

    Answer by gemgem at 9:48 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • If so, it should be provided by the state they represent.

    Answer by Carpy at 9:53 AM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • If they want it sure.. but they should have to pay for it. We are not forcing them to do the job they choose to do, so tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for it.

    Answer by JuLiAnSmOmMy317 at 1:32 PM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • I don't think security as in round the clock secret service details would make that much of a difference - much higher placed people in government have been "gotten to" with far more security than would ever be practical to supply each member of congress. Most members of congress are more like normal everyday people than the way the select few are treated on tv. You run into them at the county fair with their family, not as a public appearance or out to dinner. To provide that type of security, you'd basically be making them prisoners.

    That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to put more thought into how and where their planned appearances are staged with a little more thought to keeping an eye on the area and how easy it is to get that close.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 6:14 PM on Jan. 9, 2011

  • I think they are paid well enough to provide their own.

    Answer by scout_mom at 9:54 PM on Jan. 9, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.