In Wielding Rarely Used Veto, President Obama Puts Budget Heat on Republicans

[boutons_deux]

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Thursday vetoed a $612 billion defense policy bill, rejecting a broadly supported measure that sets funding for military salaries and equipment, and intensifying his struggle with the Republican-led Congress over federal spending.

Mr. Obama has wielded the veto only four other times since taking office in 2009, and his fifth one Thursday signaled his determination to use the defense bill as a bargaining chip to push Republicans to abandon strict spending limits on military and domestic programs enacted in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

In an Oval Office ceremony choreographed for the news media, Mr. Obama signed his veto message, saying that while the legislation had a number of positive attributes, it fell “woefully short” in key areas that Congress had an obligation to address.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/obama-vetoes-defense-bill-deepening-budget-fight-with-gop.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Will Hunting]

So wait, the Republicans were willing to cut defense spending and Obama vetoed it?

Glad to see him Uncle Tomin' it up for Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

[Splits]

So wait, the Republicans were willing to cut defense spending and Obama vetoed it?

Glad to see him Uncle Tomin' it up for Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

What? They were trying to end-around sequestration, eliminate cuts for killing machines but keep it in place for everything else. He also is trying to close Gitmo.

[boutons_deux]

So wait, the Republicans were willing to cut defense spending and Obama vetoed it?

Glad to see him Uncle Tomin' it up for Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Repugs had tricks for upping defense spending while holding everything else at sequestration level. Obama wants the stupid sequestration killed

[boutons_deux]

The bill—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2016—would have boosted the budget by $38 billion that would have been transferred to a fund that is not covered by budget caps. The White House called this a “funding gimmick.” Jordan Fabian reports (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/257694-obama-to-hold-photo-op-to-veto-defense-bill):


The president argues that it irresponsibly skirts spending caps put in place by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

He has called on Congress to increase both defense and nondefense spending.

“The bill includes this slush fund tactic that’s an irresponsible way to fund our most basic national security priorities,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters last week.


And Gregory Korte reports (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/22/obama-veto-defense-authorization-bill-spending-fight/74371856/):


"This president is not going to accept a defense authorization bill that fails to fix the harmful spending cuts known as sequestration and short-changes our troops," White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Thursday. "The president believes that the men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve adequate and responsible funding, not through a gimmick or not through a slush fund, but one that could withstand scrutiny."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437487/-President-Obama-vetoes-612-defense-bill-that-would-have-created-war-fighting-slush-fund?detail=email

[Wild Cobra]

That's interesting. The final hose vote by democrats was 37 yes and 146 no, but the democrats in the senate was almost half yes. 20 to 24.

The bill itself passed in the house 270 to 156, and 70 to 27 in the senate.

That was no simple majority, and a simple majority is all that was required.

Why is Obama not deferring to the will of our elected representatives?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h532

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s277

[boutons_deux]

That's interesting. The final hose vote by democrats was 37 yes and 146 no, but the democrats in the senate was almost half yes. 20 to 24.

The bill itself passed in the house 270 to 156, and 70 to 27 in the senate.

That was no simple majority, and a simple majority is all that was required.

Why is Obama not deferring to the will of our elected representatives?

because he wants the stupid sequestration bullshit KILLED

and since when do Congressional Repugs pay any fuck attention to their voters instead of their lobbyists?

[Splits]

That's interesting. The final hose vote by democrats was 37 yes and 146 no, but the democrats in the senate was almost half yes. 20 to 24.

The bill itself passed in the house 270 to 156, and 70 to 27 in the senate.

That was no simple majority, and a simple majority is all that was required.

Why is Obama not deferring to the will of our elected representatives?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h532

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s277

Sounds a lot like the immigration bill which easily passed in the Senate and would have easily passed in the House if Boehner would have brought it up for a vote. Why do Republicans not listen to the will of the people? Oh wait, I know, they need this issue to rile up their racists for elections.

[boutons_deux]

"Republicans not listen to the will of the people"

for immigration, a key campaign issue, Repug listen to their racist, xenophobic base intently, and Repug businessman don't want their exploited, underpaid cheap immigrant labor disturbed.