WH issues veto threat on defense approps bill

WH issues veto threat on defense approps bill

The House’s Republican-controlled defense committees are 0 for 2 so far this year in yielding legislation that President Obama could sign. That may not come as a shock.

Still, there it is: Having already threatened to veto the House Armed Services’ Committee’s defense authorization bill in May, the White House has now threatened to veto the House Appropriations Committee’s defense bill, which sets aside funding for the Defense Department.

Why? The Office of Management and Budget said the approps bill not only breaks the spirit of last year’s deficit reduction agreement, it also would rob funds from other important accounts and leave DoD less ready to carry on its missions and would let HAC-D get away with overstepping the bounds of holding the Pentagon’s wallet.


Said OMB:

[P]assing H.R. 5856 at its current funding level would mean that when the Congress constructs other appropriations bills, it would necessitate significant and harmful cuts to critical national priorities such as education, research and development, job training, and health care. Furthermore, the bill undermines key investments in high-priority programs, impeding the ability of the Secretary of Defense to carry out the defense strategic guidance issued earlier this year, and hindering the ability of the armed forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new strategy. The administration also strongly objects to the inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.

House appropriators have no business putting restrictions on the U.S. relationship with Pakistan; the administration’s ability to handle detainees; and “other provisions in the bill,” OMB said.

As for the specific programs that HAC-D wanted to protect, the White House argued that everyone agreed last year the Pentagon would have to tighten its belt, and as such it needs the freedom to pull back or divest some of the things we’ve heard so, so much about this year.

The bill would have restricted the Air Force and Army from “divesting, transferring or retiring unneeded aircraft” — i.e. the C-27J Spartans; C-23 Sherpas; and Global Hawk Block 30s — and such “would impair the ability of the Secretary to manage the Department and, by retaining large numbers of under-resourced aircraft in the fleet in today’s fiscally constrained environment, could contribute to a hollow force,” OMB said.

It also echoed Secretary Panetta’s recent appeal to Congress for $400 million to turn out the lights on the Medium Extended Air Defense System, warning that lawmakers’ penny-pinchery in this area could give the U.S. a black eye with some important allies:

If the Congress does not appropriate the funding in the FY 2013 Budget request, there is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding.  This could harm our relationship with our allies on a much broader basis, including future multinational cooperative projects.  It also could prevent the completion of the agreed proof of concept activities, which would provide data archiving, analysis of testing, and software development necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.

That “harvest” is important, defense officials argue, if the U.S. is going to take what it can from the remnants of MEADS under the Army belief that there’s no such thing as a failed program.

Other interesting points in OMB’s veto threat include the defense of DoD’s alternative fuel ambitions, which the White House argues would “insulate” the force from price shocks; and the administration’s defense of an afloat forward staging base for the Navy. As you’ll see, the argument for an AFSB is half tactical relevance, half support for shipyards:

The Administration opposes elimination of funding for AFSB.  The $38 million requested in the FY 2013 Budget request is needed for advanced procurement of AFSB, which would meet Combatant Commanders’ requirements for special operations and mine clearance.  Further, AFSB is critical to the health of the shipbuilding industrial base as it is the only auxiliary ship in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan until FY 2016.

For all its detail, the White House’s veto message is not surprising. Republican defense advocates say DoD has borne a disproportionate share of the sacrifice in the early years of Austerity America, and both the authorization and appropriations bills reflect their belief that others must start giving up what they want. The president and his Democratic allies who control the Senate disagree, and so we’re back where we started, with another round of gridlock.

Join the Conversation

So now WH wants more of the Defense budget for his Social programs, what a surprise, and you really think that they will try to stop “Sequestration” This has been the Liberal Dream for the last 30 years. So get ready for Jan. it’s really going to hurt. I foresee major cuts in the LCS, JSF, just to name a few.

Not all wrong the USAF should if it wants retire C-27Js if it doesn’t want them. Political programs like GCV ICC and now AAS are wasting Billions from programs we need like NIE DDG-1000 and other fighter plane programs. Overall its the US House making all the main problems in DoD funding in the first place.

Yes…“sequestration”…the liberal Democrats co-op the tea party Republicans. It will be interesting.

The Republicans made a bad deal. Now they have to live with it.

True they believed the democrats would never consciously destroy the defense dep’t. Naive!

What will happen when one of Chinas i.c.chips says its too late?

You have to remember the DemocRATS loaded their side with all the liberal big government spending types that do not beleive in cutting a budget, but raising taxes to pay for their social programs and education meant to put more Americans on the public dole and provide the DemocRATS with a voting block

I keep asking my self this, How long would the Obama governemtn last if all the Republicans stopped working and paying taxes and started living on the governemtn dole?

No, some House Republicans know no sense. Standing up for principle is one thing. Wrecking the military and their party is another.

Obama could care less on how much he hurts our military. Obama Must Go—OMG.

It should be hilarious over the next few years to hear the personal stories of people layed off by defense cuts (because they voted for tea party republicans), finding that what few jobs that exist are beign outsourced (because they voted for Romney’s republicans), and unable to find any other work in a destroyed economy (because they voted for Bush’s republicans twice).

Do log in and post about how it’s all the democrats fault LOL

It amazes me that people can still be partisan and actually try and point a finger at one party over the other. 16 trillion $ in debt, the Congress and WH have both changed hands to either or and people actually think there is one side more culpable than the other.

Both these miserable parties have used deficit spending to buy their ways in to office and then continue it to stay in office. The current US political system is about who can more shrewdly buy off their base and turn out the vote, since half of America usually doesn’t even bother.

You’ve got the moron Democrats that can’t seem to understand we have to stop the increases in growth and we have got to slash social welfare programs that every model shows are completely unsustainable. You’ve got the ruhtard Republicans that can’t just tune in the news from Europe and see that just austerity ie, cutting to the bone, doesn’t work either.

We’ve got a bunch of self absorbed prima donnas in Congress that all think they are right and everyone else is wrong, and it’s impossible for the conceited morons to work together. We’ve got a POTUS who has essentially done nothing for the last year on more or less any front, because he can’t be held accountable at the polls for things he doesn’t do. At the end of the day we are stuck with a bunch of blue ribbon turkeys running this nation.

Seriously though folks, give the partisanship a rest. Both sides of the aisle in DC are a joke.

This seems to be one of those blogs that draw mostly knee-jerk responses with little thought behind them. This is less a partisan issue than a case where our Beloved Congress is much more concerned with pork barrel projects for their districts than effective defense spending. That’s the real reason why the House is pushing funding for projects the services want to kill, while at the same time cutting funds for items they want. Democrats and Republicans both do it.

Should we be surprise!! Everytime a Democratic President is elected, DOD is in line for cuts to support social programs. Just look around and see how many people are living on social programs. Many has never worked and don’t want to work. Kids or quiting school and then stay in trouble with the law. Many will live on social programs the rest of their lives. If you have a telephone, we pay to give a free phone to the same people that want work or go to school. Good old USA.

Yeah, no fault belongs to the democrats. You’re ne partisan.

The White House is also saying it’s vetoing the bill because the military isn’t being forced to pay more for health care.

Story missed that.

This President has the same right as any other before him to veto what he feels is not right for the people of this country! I as sure that he has looked at this with his eyes (advisers) and not from his as_ hole like your mouth is doing. Our tax dollars pay and have been paying over the years for “Advisers” the each President, and from the block/hood where you come from! Live and learn!

Base Defense appropriations is and has been set on unsustainable growth levels. It has nothing to do about the current WH. Actually the current WH has favored spending even more than Congress recently, but the fact remains that such medium-term budget expectations to see for example, a $610bn base budget for FY16 is simply not reality nor possible.

The greatest threat to US’s ability to maintain the relative deterrence value, maintain balance of power and prevent a hollow force structure over the next 10 years, is in not being able to put together a strategic acquisition plan in the immediate term which could be sustainable and built around consolidated appropriations as part of the Austere budget environment reality going forward.

Effectively adjusting the acquisition process when faced with reduced Defense appropriations does NOT mean you simply cut the order of F-35 you buy by 50%, the number of NGB you buy, by 75%, or the number of Super Carriers or DDG-1000 or LCS you buy. That only provides a more catastrophic defense posture and even weaker deterrence. What is necessary and needed is to effectively adjust the fundamental acquisition strategy and doctrine which only then can enable more muscle, with less fat, given smaller budgets. Staying the strategic course, we’re going to have much less muscle, significantly higher fat ratio, far less weight…

A fundamental, strategic restructuring is required in order to sustain credibility and viability… it’s a leadership issue, not a sequestration issue.

Veto-smeeto; Obama is an abomination and HE MUST GO so REAL AMERICANS can fix this country that HE has screwed up more in three and a half years than any other in history. Jimmy Carter was once the worst POTUS ever, but Obamination is by light years, his successor as a useless, lying, vacationing, do nothing worth a damn Bum! HE is the enemy within and in the eyes of some, the “Anti-Christ” in the flesh. I do not care who anyone votes for as long as it is NOT for this evil, insidious loser. Heck, Hitler might be more trustworthy than Broke Obummer. At least we’d know what we had to deal with.

There is a simple solution to these problems…move more responsibility from the big federal government back to the states. For DoD funding I believe all forces (people and equipment) should be managed at a state level with the federal government focused on strategic forces.

So the states are going to do thier own recruiting and training? How about weapons development and testing? Depot-level sustainment? Each state going to have it’s own retirement system and TRICARE? NCO academies, mid and senior level service schools?

That would be interesting…

Maybe we could just outsource U.S. defense to China? How’s this for a radical idea: The DOD and top brass in the services put together a proposed budget, and Congress either accepts it or adjusts it, but keeps their corrupt little paws out of the process of deciding the specifics of where funds should be allocated. Yeah, I know; that’s about as likely as the outsourcing option.

You have to read more of my previous comments.

Uh yeah… Sure I do. Reminds me of the democrats saying we will love Obamacare. We just don’t “understand”.

I supposed when standing on Mars, it would seem that way.

Mars? Funny!

Then again it’s closer than the planet you’re on, Uranus. ;)

I think the DEFENSE BUDGET should be DEFENSE ORIENTED ONLY, leave out the other unnessary PORK PROJECTS. The money is called the DEFENSE BILL not the DEFENSE AND PORK PROJECTS BILL.
STOP the BS from being tacked on!!

How is Obama increasing the budget spending by cancelling unwanted programs? And why do we need the LCS (for corrosion studies?) or JSF (for main gate decorators?)? To a certain extent, the Navy, Army, And AF are spending money just for new toys when we need the money to correct the problems that came to light in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it might end up being a choice between cancelling the C27 or the A10: both useful, one very necessary. And worst of all, IEDs, AKs, mortars, and RPGs were the worst opponents this time. How is any of this stuff actually addressing a future war if we haven’t addressed the last one?

People can say what they want on the ‘tea party’ ideology, but at the end of the day it comes down to 2 things. Less government and less taxes. Both of which have overburden the people and bled the country dry.

Whether it was Mr. Big Government Social Conservative Bush or President Downgrade Obama, they don’t serve in the interest of tax payers (47% of the country doesn’t pay taxes so they don’t count).

47% don’t pay income tax, almost everyone pays some form of tax.

It’s also too easy to just say less taxes and government, because were the government to say slash spending 33% tomorrow, the economy would free fall into depression and likely drag the world with us.

The real answer that will hurt the least people take longer, aren’t dramatic, require not just compromise but some acceptance of responsibility regardless of political ideology, and there is none of that at the moment in DC.

He’s talking about income tax.

Don’t get your reasonong for a 33% cut in gov’t spending causing a depression.

Agree it’ll take longer and cut the drama but I’m not high on compromise unless you’re specific. All too often compromise means “give up your principles so I can get my way”.

K-Are you familiar with history? You really think we are going to stop bullets, mines, arty and rocket propelled grenades? That’s like believing we’ll stop poverty. Not saying we shouldn’t try (for the first time we’ve fielded semi efficient body armor) but those programs are relatively minor in comparison to the major weapon systems.

Really shocked that the President would use military health care as a hammer to get his way! Did note that he has left the DOD civilian’s health care alone. Speaks volumes — but, in a very sad way!

Did you read what the pentagon experts told congress about the need to reduce those wasteful weapon systems, along with the support systems that are also not needed? Have you bothered reading the latest that the CNO Admiral Greenert, wrote about the JSF and the future of stealth aircraft? I suppose you want the pentagon wasting those dollars, instead of actually providing a better future for the next generation of Americans. This is just another example of the republican house backing out on their word. Shameful.

But that’s the problem: far too much legislation in general (budgets or other legalities) gave, for too long, involved all sorts of various riders and supplemental clauses (pork), because all too often, that’s what it takes to get politicians to vote in favor.
“No jobs for my constituents? No campaign kickbacks for me? Why again should I vote for it?”

That’s how our political cycle works.
What our Founding Fathers intended?
Most likely not.
But that’s what happens when we allow career politicians instead of citizen leaders. Even worse when our legal system doesn’t even hold them accountable a majority of the tine when they outright fail their constituents.
The greatest short term solution is to STOP VOTING FOR INCUMBENTS.

Have you yet seem Obama and the DemocRATS talk about cutting social programs like welfare and Medicaid? Nope all they talk about cutting is defense Social Security and Medicare

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.