ABC News: Obama threatens to veto defense bill

[Winehole23]

White House Threatens to Veto Defense Bill

June 26, 2009 9:23 AM



Congress and the White House appear headed for a collision. The White House this week threatened to veto a defense bill if it includes military spending that Defense Secretary Gates outlined as wasteful and unnecessary. The House passed the $680 billion bill with those provisions Thursday, by a vote of 389-22.


Specifically, President Obama opposes the inclusion of $369 million in the bill for more F-22 fighter jets and $603 million for development and procurement of the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program.
If the final bill presented to the president contains either of those provision, a White House statement released Wednesday threatened, "the president's senior advisors would recommend a veto."


In that statement on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the White House said it "has serious concerns with a number of provisions that could constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions, that depart from Secretary Gates' decisions reflected in the president's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget which carefully balanced fiscal constraints, program performance, strategic needs and capabilities, or that raise other issues."


The White House also expressed objections to other provisions in the bill restricting aircraft retirements and limiting U.S. engagements with NATO and European allies regarding missile defense programs, as well as other provisions, but none of them were objectionable enough to merit a veto threat.

"I think the president has outlined projects, as well as the Secretary of Defense, that he believes are not necessary spending." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "And we issued yesterday a statement of administration policy that said if the projects that the Secretary of Defense had outlined to the President were included in appropriations bills, then, upon the advice of the Secretary and senior advisors in the White House, those bills would be sent back, as I think (Office of Management and Budget director) Peter Orszag testified today."


"The president will veto bills that don't meet his standards," Orszag told Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., Thursday.



The veto threat didn’t seem to have much impact on the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted 13-11 in favor of more F-22s. The committee also voted to support the other provision that President Obama said could invoke a veto -- an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.


“It is regrettable that the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders,” F-22 proponent Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Thursday.


This is not Mr. Obama's first veto threat.



In January, before he even had been sworn in as president, he told Democrats on Capitol Hill that he would veto any bill blocking the release of the second $350 billion for the troubled asset relief program to help stabilize the financial sector

[clambake]

The veto threat didn’t seem to have much impact on the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted 13-11 in favor of more F-22s. The committee also voted to support the other provision that President Obama said could invoke a veto -- an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.


“It is regrettable that the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders,” F-22 proponent Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Thursday.


this must have some hometown implications.

[coyotes_geek]

Obama's veto would get overridden. Congress has too much invested personally to let Obama take away part of their pie.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama's veto would get overridden. Congress has too much invested personally to let Obama take away part of their pie.

That would be sweet to have a democrat controlled congress override his veto...

[Winehole23]

That would be sweet to have a democrat controlled congress override his veto...

Not if you're against pork.

[clambake]

i like wild cobras motivation.

it's so honorable.

[coyotes_geek]

Not if you're against pork.

+1

This is one instance where even Obama critics should be hoping Obama gets his way.

[Wild Cobra]

Not if you're against pork.

I'm not one that considers these projects port. I guess you're saying there's pork in the bill. My understanding is that the veto threat isn't over pork, but over military assets.

Where's the pork?

[sam1617]

F-22's and Joint Strike Fighters are freaking awesome, but we don't need them at this time. As far as I know, our current generation of fighters still maintains dominance over the rest of the worlds air forces and air craft. Why spend money on something just because its new and fancy, when the old thing is doing just fine? There are more important things to do with that money, namely, not spend it.

[Winehole23]

.Where's the pork?

We don't need the new fighters.

[Wild Cobra]

We don't need the new fighters.

We differ in opinion there. Should there be a need to use them, some actual conflict, we need 'spares' in case several get shot down. Besides, with as small as the military budget is compared to social spending. Wow... it's about 1.4% of the military budget. Easily find far more savings suspending any future TARP money, reducing social spending, and stop the efforts of taking over the medical industry. Military spending is about the lowest in terms of GNP as it's ever been. The big money is the domonrats desire of social engineering.

[Winehole23]

Savings is savings, and SECDEF Gates disagrees with you.

[Winehole23]

One of our aircraft carriers has more planes than most countries' entire air forces.

[clambake]

One of our aircraft carriers has more planes than most countries' entire air forces.

WC likes to use cluster bombs to kill roaches.

thats the mentality.

[boutons_deux]

Defense budget is 50% corporate welfare and pork, wrapped in the flag.

[PEP]

Defense budget is 50% corporate welfare and pork, wrapped in the flag.

Why are you always so miserable? You sad sad little man.

[Wild Cobra]

Defense budget is 50% corporate welfare and pork, wrapped in the flag.

Call it what you will, but do you really want to put all those 1,000s of high skilled workers out of work that make $70,000+ per year and pay $20,000+ per year back in taxes? You'd rather have them join the welfare rolls?

I'd rather have the deficit in military spending keeping jobs alive than putting even more people out of work.

[ChumpDumper]

Any military spending is good.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you always so miserable? You sad sad little man.

He's a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming. He believes the corporations are why little people can't get ahead. He also acts like a cradle to grave government baby.

[Wild Cobra]

Any military spending is good.

I assume the italics are for sarcasm?

I will not agree to that. However, the jets are useful tools for military superiority and I believe we need to remain the strongest nation on this planet.

[ChumpDumper]

It's good to know you are for the Keynesian stimulation of the economy.

You can quit ing about spending now.

[Wild Cobra]

It's good to know you are for the Keynesian stimulation of the economy.

You can quit ing about spending now.

I'm not. I just believe the military is a proper way to spend tax dollars and is clearly referred to in the cons ution. Social spending is not.

[Winehole23]

Just because it's cons utionally proper doesn't make every defense appropriation a good idea. Defense spending can, and has been abused by legislators (and the armed forces) to serve parochial (and bureaucratic), rather than strategic needs. This is fairly clearly the case with these new fighters.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not. I just believe the military is a proper way to spend tax dollars and is clearly referred to in the cons ution. Social spending is not.

According to your, em, unique interpretation of the Cons ution.

Don't ever about pork again.

[Wild Cobra]

According to your, em, unique interpretation of the Cons ution.

Don't ever about pork again.

What I don't like is something not associated with the purpose and scope of a bill. I have no problems with military assets in a military appropriations bill. Call it pork if you want, that's your opinion, it is legitimate withing the purpose and scope. Most earmarks are added to a bill that have nothing to do with the scope and purpose! I am against any earmark, automatically, that is outside the purpose and scope of a bill!