Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) famously admitted, in 2012, that Republicans have cut funding for embassy security.

House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Tucker's poutrage is based on something his Koch and Oil'igarch overlords are vehemently opposed to: green energy, which is non-fossil fuels-based (geothermal, solar, wind etc). Since when does the spending on foreign embassies even come close to an entire nation's green energy costs? Carlson said, "green energy, whatever that is!" This is all the viewers at Faux News are required to know. He contends the figures of $2.7 billion on security as opposed to $39 billion on green energy are just outrageous. Remember, at Fox News, green energy is an esoteric pipe dream that doesn't work at all, even if Germany, currently obtains 20% of their energy needs from renewables and plans to vastly increase these numbers by 2025-2050.

Green Beret guest, Ben Collins and Tucker both claim that the spending for energy is fourteen times the spending for embassy security, two separate issues which have never been in the same ballpark as each other; they have always been incomparable. These numbers are straight from Fox News' Ass Depot™, where they get many of their facts. From the president's proposed budget, the State Department is requesting an increase on security:

Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $53.3 billion, or about 6 percent more than last year.

That claim that the president has cut funding for security is a lie, as you can see, he's increased the spending, unlike Chaffetz and his Teabag Brigade.

If you look at the chart below, you'll see the budget proposed by the Bush Administration that President Obama had to work with when he first took office. The comparison of energy spending versus homeland security spending isn't even close to 14 to 1. It's more like 12.6 billion to 100 million or 126 to 1. This is an idiotic means of denigrating President Obama's budget priorities by falsely comparing bananas to raisins. Of course Tucker's and Ben's biased figures come from the pro-oil and pro-pollution American Taxpayer Alliance. The chart below is from the Bush Administration's budget for fiscal year 2009.

Remember, fondly the Bush years, as Carlson does, when environmental spending declined sharply. This brought us some really nasty consequences for our water resources:

The biggest cuts would come out of the program designed to help states and communities update aging sewer systems. This program is important because the crumbling sewer systems allow hundreds of billions of gallons of raw sewage to leak into rivers, lakes and bays every year.

They subsidize the oil and gas industry with obscene amounts, but an energy source that harnesses the sun is undeserving of start up help and government subsidies. One percent, pro-pollution and anti-environmental protection publications are all parrotting this 14 to 1 'shocking' comparison.

“Solar energy’s day in the Sun may yet to come, but taxpayers should not be forced to foot the cost associated with turning the failing industry around,” the report concludes. “Solar energy must be asked to stand on its own, powered exclusively by private investment and initiative.”

However, Fox News assumes that drilling the earth mercilessly for oil and fracking it to smithereens, for natural gas, is much more deserving of government charity. How can anyone see this malevolence and not realize these maniacs are trying to bleed and scorch the earth? Oh yeah, they watch Fox News. Nuff said.