GOV/MIL Obama vetoes annual defense authorization bill for 2016

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/22/ndaa-veto-obama/74383142/

Obama vetoes annual defense authorization bill

By Leo Shane III, Staff writer 4:10 p.m. EDT October 22, 2015

President Obama vetoed the annual defense authorization bill Thursday as part of an ongoing fight with congressional Republicans over the federal budget that has left a host of military policy changes caught in the crossfire.

The move puts in doubt whether lawmakers can complete a planned overhaul of the military retirement system and whether a host of military specialty pays and bonuses will be renewed in January. The authorization bill has been signed into law for 53 consecutive years, a rare piece of bipartisan compromise through eras of partisan fighting.

Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Ash Carter, have repeatedly backed the veto even though the move endangers a number of military policies and fiscal plans.

At issue is the $612 billion bill’s inclusion of authorizing language for roughly $38 billion in extra overseas contingency funds. Republicans are using the temporary war accounts to get around mandatory defense spending caps for 2016, without lifting caps for non-defense accounts.

Democrats have decried that practice as an unfair and irresponsible budgeting gimmick, and stalled every congressional appropriations measure in the Senate in response.

But a sizable number of House and Senate Democrats broke ranks with that strategy on the authorization bill, which Republicans have said is mostly policy measures and does not directly order the problematic appropriations.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, noted the measure includes authorization flexibility if a broader budget deal is reached, making the president’s veto all the more unnecessary.

“It’s distasteful,” he told reporters earlier this month. “There is nothing more we could have done in this bill to satisfy what the president is worried about.”

On Tuesday, after Congress formally sent the bill to the White House, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called the then-looming veto “not only irresponsible, it just doesn’t make sense.”

MILITARYTIMES

Republicans warn Obama not to veto defense policy bill


“And the president is even threatening to do this at a time when he has recommitted troops to Afghanistan,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Our country and armed forces deserve better.”

A congressional override of Obama’s veto is unlikely, but House leaders will attempt it Nov. 5.

That chamber easily passed the measure 270-156, but fell well short of the 290 votes needed to override the veto. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said despite enough apparent support from Democrats in his chamber, his caucus would sustain a presidential veto “without any question.”

Both Thornberry and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have repeatedly said they don’t have a backup plan for the authorization bill. The compromise measure was the result of nine months of debate and negotiations, and any revised or resurrected measure will depend on a larger budget deal between Obama and Republican leadership.

“We have done our job,” McCain said. “We won’t be in those negotiations. We can’t control any of that.”

The biggest casualty of a vetoed authorization bill would be the retirement overhaul, under discussion for years among military advocates.

The new plan would replace the 20-year, all-or-nothing current system with a blended retirement deal including a reduced pension and a 401(k)-style investment plan. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2018, but it would guarantee most troops leave the service with some retirement benefit.

Hill staffers have warned that negotiations on that issue have been detailed and difficult, and reopening the deal could jeopardize its chances of ever becoming law.

The measure also includes new protections for sexual assault victims in the ranks, a new review of personal firearms for troops on U.S. bases and re-enlistment bonuses that Pentagon officials have said are critical for retention goals.

The veto is just the fifth of Obama’s presidency, among the lowest usage rate in U.S. history. Congress has not successfully overridden any of the previous four.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/politics/obama-vetoes-612-billion-defense-bill-in-rebuke-to-gop

Obama vetoes $612 billion defense bill in rebuke to GOP

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (October 22, 2015) — President Barack Obama has vetoed a sweeping $612 billion defense policy bill in a rebuke to congressional Republicans.

Obama says the bill does a number of good things, but falls woefully short in other areas. He says it "resorts to gimmicks."

The White House invited reporters and photographers to watch Obama veto the bill in the Oval Office.

Obama says he opposes the bill because it uses creative budget maneuvers to boost defense spending by $38 billion without increasing domestic spending. Obama wants higher spending for both.

Obama also disapproves of provisions that would make it harder to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The veto forces Congress to revise the bill, or try to settle a larger budget dispute that led Obama to veto it.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Look it's time you had a prime minster type situation in the US, the POTUS leads a majority Govt elected every 4 years as party leader.

This whole situation is ridiculous.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Look it's time you had a prime minster type situation in the US, the POTUS leads a majority Govt elected every 4 years as party leader.

This whole situation is ridiculous.

The system only works as long as the majority of those involved are statesmen. Right now the ratio of professional political hacks in all three branches has reached a toxic level.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
The system only works as long as the majority of those involved are statesmen. Right now the ratio of professional political hacks in all three branches has reached a toxic level.

Yes but you don't have a system that works, not saying it is your fault......
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Another point on Richard's observation, the level of political involvement and education necessary for either system to properly function is anathema to those same political hacks.
 

JohnGaltfla

#NeverTrump
Another point on Richard's observation, the level of political involvement and education necessary for either system to properly function is anathema to those same political hacks.

The level of political involvement in the U.S. is inhibited because 70% of the population consists of bleeping retards.
 

Warthog

Black Out
Look it's time you had a prime minster type situation in the US, the POTUS leads a majority Govt elected every 4 years as party leader.

This whole situation is ridiculous.
The Executive Branch was never supposed to have the power that it has. That's what happens when racism is used against the members of the Senate, Congress, the American people, and they turn in to pussies over it!
 

Be Well

may all be well
Hard to argue with that point, particularly when you look at who gets elected from the major metropolitan areas.

I think the number of bleeping retards is actually smaller; but the level of corruption in the political process is so gargantuan and deeply rooted it will be very hard to remove. But I think that time is coming, and it will be hard. But necessary, like lancing a huge gangrenous boil.
 

Be Well

may all be well
Look it's time you had a prime minster type situation in the US, the POTUS leads a majority Govt elected every 4 years as party leader.

This whole situation is ridiculous.

It's beyond ridiculous. Countries with more parties seem to work out better. Regular citizens are being strangled to death by the two parties and the sickening bureaucracy they've created.
 

kittyknits

Veteran Member
The system only works as long as the majority of those involved are statesmen. Right now the ratio of professional political hacks in all three branches has reached a toxic level.

John Adams wrote that our system will only work with a good and moral people (paraphrase).

I believe Jefferson wrote it would only work until the people realized they could vote themselves money. (I think it was Jefferson).

Recently, I've been wondering if the founding fathers were so smart, and I believe they were, why they didn't realize the system they created would eventually fail.
 

kittyknits

Veteran Member
The level of political involvement in the U.S. is inhibited because 70% of the population consists of bleeping retards.

And that's not going to get any better with our current educational system.

To refer to another thread, "puppy days" on campus--college students must act like 5-7 year-olds nowadays. Imagine them as adults trying to run a country. Well, I'm old; I probably won't have see that fiasco.
 

Be Well

may all be well
John Adams wrote that our system will only work with a good and moral people (paraphrase).

I believe Jefferson wrote it would only work until the people realized they could vote themselves money. (I think it was Jefferson).

Recently, I've been wondering if the founding fathers were so smart, and I believe they were, why they didn't realize the system they created would eventually fail.

Franklin told a woman after signing the Constitution, "A Republic, if you can keep it". Words to that effect.
 

Laurane

Canadian Loonie
Time for an Independent American Party to come up the middle in the next Election.......with Trump at its head.
 

hiwall

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Recently, I've been wondering if the founding fathers were so smart, and I believe they were, why they didn't realize the system they created would eventually fail.
That's why they put in the opportunity to make amendments- so it would not fail. What they never thought would happen was that elected officials would always put themselves before their country.
 

GreenGecko

Inactive
Look it's time you had a prime minster type situation in the US, the POTUS leads a majority Govt elected every 4 years as party leader.

This whole situation is ridiculous.

I did not say as much, but that is what I was implying in my thoughts that a two-party system is not working. (My comments in the Benghazi thread.)
 
Top