This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
House Passes Massive Defense Bill Which Obama Will Promptly Veto
The US House of Representative just approved (by a vote of 269 to 151) the $612 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) funding moar warmongery for fiscal year 2016. However, the vote came short of a veto-proof majority and since the administration opposes the defense policy bill - for its alleged budgeting "gimmicks," as well as its provisions for arming Ukrainian forces - we suspect President Obama is preparing to unleash the veto pen.
As The Military Times reports,
The measure includes an overhaul of the military's retirement system and rejects a host of pay and benefits trims proposed by the Pentagon. It supports, in principle, a 2.3 percent pay raise for troops, but lacks the legislative language to force that paycheck boost, leaving flexibility for President Obama to go with the lower 1.3 percent raise backed by Pentagon leaders.
The bill also includes a host of new policy changes on sexual assault protections and prosecution, reforms to the defense acquisition process, and restrictions on transfer of detainees out of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"There are a lot of good things in this bill," Smith said Friday. "But we have one overarching problem, the same that we've had since 2011. ... This bill's reliance on the overseas contingency (account) is a problem for the Department of Defense. This doesn't lift the budget caps, and that is harmful."
The bill, as RT reports, authorizes $515 billion for so-called national defense spending, $89.2 billion for an emergency war fund and an additional $7.7 billion in mandatory defense spending that does not receive authorization from Congress.
Yet the $612 billion bill was opposed by many Democratic lawmakers who have criticized the Republican majority for ignoring defense budget caps approved by Congress in 2011 to address federal deficits. Democrats say by boosting the emergency war fund -- which is not in the purview of the Budget Control Act of 2011 -- Republicans sought to evade the law to increase military spending but will not do the same for similar caps on domestic spending.
Prior to Friday's vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pledged to oppose the NDAA for the additional war funding that comes without offsets.
"The Republican defense authorization bill before the House is both bad budgeting and harmful to military planning — perpetuating uncertainty and instability in the defense budget, and damaging the military's ability to plan and prepare for the future," Pelosi wrote to her House colleagues.
"As Defense Secretary (Ash) Carter said last week, Republicans' approach is 'clearly a road to nowhere,' 'managerially unsound' and 'unfairly dispiriting to our force.'"
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry called on Congress to pass the bill despite ongoing disputes over the 2011 law.
"The idea that we would hold the military and pay and their weapons and the policies involved hostage in the hopes we can put enough pressure to have the president and Congress somehow come together to fix these other problems, I just think that's unrealistic," Thornberry said, according to The Hill.
Republican House speaker John Boehner said top Democrats were "downright shameful" for helping to pass the NDAA out of committee only to oppose it during the broader vote.
The White House, meanwhile, has threatened to veto the NDAA for the war funding provisions, as well as restrictions the bill would place on transferring detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The White House also opposed measures in the bill that would seek to arm Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-allied separatists and that would attempt to fund Iraqi Kurdish fighters without approval from the Iraqi government.
The Obama administration also criticized Republicans for ignoring other cost-saving measures, including base closures and retirement of the Air Force A-10 'Warthog' fleet.
* * *
»
- 12251 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The A-10 should not be retired its a great aircraft.
Some ass kissing general at the Pentagon just junked you.
Yeah well talk to any military combat vet that was supported by the A-10, they will tell you the same. Its insane to take that plane out of service to replace it with a uber expensive piece of shit simply to fatten the pockets of a congressman and senator who get donations from the producer of the said uber expensive piece of shit. The service men of the military that actually see combat love the A-10 because it saves their asses.
I have a better idea. Stop putting our people in positions where they even NEED close air support all the fucking time and we can both retire the a10 and get rid of the garbage JSF. Enough is enough.
If we do that, propaganda will be less effective. You know we have to save the children and bring democracy to brown people.
Amen, to no more foreign entanglements.
You know we have to save the children and bring democracy to brown people.
What??? Are you trying to get other countries to hate them for their freedom too?
The only people who die in Banker's Wars are the poor....
(As in you & your family)
Keep the A10 for defend borders
that would be sanity
the a10 is great. people arguing against any and all military spending are just talking nonsense because it's unrealistic and won't happen.
it would be nice if they stopped injecting bullshit into the reasonable discussion about how to cut military spending IN HALF. while maintaining core capabilities.
one good reason to keep your pussy bullshit at home is that , if the u.s. goes broke very quickly, it will have not A10 anyways and you will get your wish.
if the government tries to assert some fiscal discipline; THAT WOULDNT' BE A BAD THING.
There was no better support aircraft in history.......triple redundant flight controls, titanuim bathtub for the pilot and the most wicked chain gun ever concieved.
Problem is that now politicians are only interested in starting wars, not finishing them
finishing wars = no profit
War on Terror, how exactly do you have criteria to declare victory on a human emotion? Its the most open ended declaration of war (not that there was a congressional declaration) ever conceived.
Same same as 'War on Drugs', 'War on Poverty', etc. Lets have a "War on War".
I agree, if the "war on war" becomes as "successful" as the other wars you have mentioned, then we should have a thousand years of peace.
It's a terrible military aircraft. It's too cheap.
I understandy they are building new ones with tiny refrigerators in them.
Was it ever used against a first-rate military?
Didn't think so.
It is a great aircraft, but in an age of accurate (and economies-of-scale 'cheap' missiles produced by Russia & China), has probably seen its day. In fact, a LOT of old 'iron' - including mega-ship aircraft carriers, have seen their day.
You know, I'm not much of a military guy but I've got family in the service so keeping up on that stuff is sort of required to a certain extent.
My thought is that a lot of that "dinosaur" equipment is more useful and more cost effective than the later high-tech stuff. F-22 and F-35 come to mind. Overly complex, too expensive to risk actually using it.
In WWII the Germans had the best, most advanced tanks in the world. We had the Sherman, which was a total pile of dogshit. But we made more of them and they could be easily serviced in theatre, often by the troops that drove them. Somewhere in there is a lesson about the limitations of focussing only on the most advanced, high tech equipment.
Hell, we still used an Iowa-class battleship up through the first Gulf War. A total dinosaur, it had something no newer ship has or will ever have again- 16 inch guns that can throw a 2000 lb shell for MANY country miles. Way cheaper than cruise missiles. And I'd just LOVE to see somebody try to sink an Iowa-class with a Zodiak filled with explosives a la the Cole. Ain't happening.
All that awesome technology and guys with sandals,robes and Ak47 still holding it down. Comical isn't it?
Soviet T34 was best tank.
Germany first years had nothing stand to it, except superior leadership, tactics, training.
Tough, simple few parts, easy to service, tolerant of contaminations, was proven
over high technical.
One of best kind of example is Waffen SS preferred ZB26 over German MG cos it kept going,
even though limited magazine fed while German MG highcap belt.
Also German MG extreme high rate of fire ate more ammo than supply even though formidable
in not extreme stresses to function.
I think the 'old' mindset of parading one's 'big iron' around - especially on the high seas, is a stubborn holdover. Even 'budding' China wants to show it can project power in this arena. Now submarines are another matter entirely... However, I would suspect that in the next major hostility involving a battle/carrier group - say the South/East China sea if one wanted to speculate, we may see this generational warfare gap play out, or at least pit U.S. anti-missile technological superiority (??) against 'swarms' of cheap-by-comparison anti-ship/anti-aircraft missiles from China or China-via-Russian technology. We'll see, of that I am fairly confident.
A lot of sailors are going to get Sunburns. A damn shame, too. For what?
It'll help sell the next great %weapon-system-du-jure% to counter the new superior threat. This is how it works.
Long drones. Not the manufacturers, drones. Sadly, Skynet probably won't pay dividends.
He'll sign it. All it takes is the right bribe.
On the other hand the TRILLION dollar F-35 should be cancelled. F-16, F-15, and F-18 pilots in the F-35 development program say it hasn't worked, and won't work. it can't accelerate, climb, or turn or basically get out of it's own way. Plus it is an ungodly amount of money for each one hanging on one engine. If continued it will be this generations F-111, a marginal failed airplane; the F-111 at least had two engines and two crew.
The B-1 didn't work out so well, avoiding rain and all that, and the B-2 isn't as invisible as they claim, due to 'old' radar tech.
But someone gets rich.
B-2 is invisible to US radar, just not Russian or Chinese radar. You'd think they would have tested it against what the other side uses...
It looks like a pregnant insect, and if Australian high-command military personnel are to be believed, is a blunder in (simulated) combat operations.
Then again, look who won the 'bid'... Same thing happened when they 'won' ($$Congress) with the F-22 over the Superior-in-nearly-every-category-that-counts, YF-23 from NOC.
Same as it ever was...
Heh, at least each lost 111 would cost us less.
dup keep the a-10
for defense
Firstly, I agree.
Secondly, the Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A10 for 25 years.
No kidding. 25.
Thirdly, the cost effectiveness - or even battle effectiveness of a military acquisition program is alternately accidental or irrelevant. When budget crunch time comes - which is about every 20 years - they dump their old gear purely for the purpose of putting the freed cash against acquisition programs.
In Acquisition programs, they are not really buying military equipment, but influence in Congress.
The a10 is a great aircraft so long as U.S. troops are fighting in situations where the enemy has no Air Force worthy of the name and outdated antiaircraft capacity. If the U.S. ever goes up against a foe that actually has a prayer of victory, the a10 will prove utterly useless.
i'm finally rooting for Obama! come on VETO! -not gonna happen though.
I'm sure he'd veto it for other reasons, but this is one of the few times I would be happy with something he did.
Weird aint it? First the dealio with Iran (despite the subsequent sabre rattling) and now this.... WTF?!?!
this is happening. (no veto)
Threat of veto.
Counter for more domestic (welfare state) spending.
Deal.
If it makes no sense, then it must be good.
We need to pass it to see what's in it.
over 1/2 trillion to find the controlled oppositon to our over reach. meanwhile merica crumbles.
Social Security, Medicare, War.
That's got to be about 100% of what we take in in taxes, the rest has to go on the Citi bank credit card.
Your post suggests a solution.
How about we send anyone who votes for a warmonger and collects SS or MC to do the fighting. Two birds, one stone, mucho dinero saved.
Potential deal with Iran, Kerry telling Porkoshenko not to escalate in the Ukraine, these get in the way of the gravy train and must be stopped. Moar war for Saudi-israelia should fix things.
The U.S. slings these mega-$Billion dollar expenditure bills around like nothing ever happened, and because the $USD hegemon has allowed it this far, it will continue uninterrupted. One can only imagine Russia and China watching this play out, and what they're thinking/strategizing...
In other news...
The mandatory vaccination bill H.R. 2232
To amend the Public Health Service Act to condition receipt by States (and political subdivisions and public entities of States) of preventive health services grants on the establishment of a State requirement for students in public elementary and secondary schools to be vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and for other purposes.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2232/text
Getting ready to kill the kids off.
Then adult vaccinations will become mandatory.
Don't need gas vans or bullets when people stand in line to get their 'shots'.
Have you ever fought a 5th grader? They suck. One punch and they're all crying and bleeding and stuff. They won't be of any use to the revolution. In fact, they will be useless eaters that cannot be fed.
We need to conserve air for the voters (oldsters) so they can get more free shit from .gov.
$600+ billion probably means there has been an "acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex" and that there has been a "disastrous rise of misplaced power." Eisenhower is going to be pissed.
I expect Obummer will get a late night visit!
https://youtu.be/DZV_vpkVTNA
Its all paper anyways. In 1950 the entire outlays for the US federal government was 47 Billion dollars. Today 50 billion is the market cap of Uber, all NBA teams and at least 50 US corporations have a market cap of double that!! Its all just paper, and let me reiterate, if its $550 billion it is still 11 times more than the what the government spent on everything just 65 years ago.
In 2014 the US federal government spent 3.5 TRILLION dollars, or 70 times what it spent just 65 years earlier. This is only 5 years into 80 million boomers collecting S.S. and medical benefits.
Today student loan debt is 1.3 trillion and only going higher. Just think, students in this country, carry a debt 26 times what the federal government spent for an entire year just 65 years ago. Some will pay it back legally without ever repaying it in reality, the rest will probably either be forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy, when they change that rule, which they will.
Its all just funny money being printed reaching the wrong people who don't need it. It needs to be put to work in a more equitable way. If not, good luck to all those age 0-50 because it ain't gonna be pretty.
...passed a massive OFFENSE bill to serve Eretz Israel.
He won't veto because they are giving him his TPP trade deal to make this a double "screw America" moment. These clowns are planning another war to hide all the graft and theft that they have allowed in our own economy in the past 5 years. I am sure some of that money will be used for "security" within our borders....
Those Dems, so anti war it is breathtaking.
Oh please, Obama! Don’t veto the defense spending, it will sky-rocket the price of heroin, cocaine and weed to finance the black budget. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Rummy proclaimed that the Pentagon was missing 1 1/2 trillion dollars on the day before 9/11/01 and now it is at 6 trillion missing.
14 years of never ending war has cost an additional estimated 6 trillion dollars. What difference does the official budget make?
This budget shell game is getting a little old isn’t it or maybe the bean counters have just given up? Ha. Ha. Ha.
I bet he isn't veto in because the detention, arrest, and assassination of American citizens without due process
Obama wil let us build Ospreys .....even during bankruptcy proceedings
If anything the military needs new A-10s. They are cheap, effective, and survivable in the air to ground mode - everything the F-35 is not.
Pentagon adviser and war college professor Thomas Barnett . the Boys are never coming home .. In his book the Pentagons New Map ... What does this new approach mean for this nation and the world over the long run? Let me be very clear about this: The boys are never coming home. America is not leaving the Middle East until the Middle East joins the world. It’s that simple. No exit means no exit strategy. Lunatics rule in the DoD .. Barnett was hailed for this idea .. you can watch the lunacy here ... Barnett has all the features of a child molester . soft pudding face and hands.. creeps you out when you meet him .. anyway .. his notion of war without end is backed up by the newly disgraced on purpose... Gen. Wesley Clark who let it slip on NUMEROUS occasions that US policy was now war without end . surprised they did not take him out . did hte next best thing by revealing his business operations . .which are no worse than 20 other 'generals' who work for the MIC. Barnett never served one day ni uniform but he was making policy and that policy is still SOP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDVOP0lEECk
Barnett is typical of those repulsive chickenhawks who make a living off war but never ever put their own ass on the line.
The pen is mightier than the elephant.
"You can't expect us to fight Zion's wars on that?! Do you?! More!"
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
In reality it is just more theater for the mutton eating sheeple..