THERE ISN’T much bipartisan governance left in Washington, but if anything still fits that description, it’s probably the annual defense authorization act, which sets spending levels and policy for the Pentagon, and, therefore, usually brings Republicans and Democrats together in support of national security and the troops. On April 30, the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee approved a $600 billion-plus bill by a bipartisan vote of 60 to 2 . Thursday, the Senate counterpart did the same, by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4….
WaPo: Playing Politics With Defense Spending
"National Defense is a Clear Constitutional Responsibility of the Federal Government; Fully Funding it Should Take Priority."
-Washington Post Editorial Board May 14, 2015 - Read The Full Editorial Here
THERE ISN'T much bipartisan governance left in Washington, but if anything still fits that description, it's probably the annual defense authorization act, which sets spending levels and policy for the Pentagon, and, therefore, usually brings Republicans and Democrats together in support of national security and the troops. On April 30, the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee approved a $600 billion-plus bill by a bipartisan vote of 60 to 2 . Thursday, the Senate counterpart did the same, by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4….
Now that the bill is headed to the full House, however, President Obama is threatening a veto and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is urging her caucus to vote no. Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi's main objection is that the bill uses budgetary ledgerdemain to let the Pentagon escape sequestration budget caps, while other discretionary spending remains constrained by them….
Now Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of taking the defense and domestic budgets hostage — and that's where our sympathy for the president's position ends. He's helped set this blame game in motion, when his role as commander in chief should cause him to rise above it. We agree that discretionary programs need more money… When all is said and done, national defense is a clear constitutional responsibility of the federal government; fully funding it should take priority.
What we haven't really seen from the president is a clear and convincing explanation of how and where he would tailor U.S. security commitments to fit the smaller budget he is, in effect, threatening to accept. Far better for him, and his party's leadership in Congress, to help an adequate defense budget keep moving through Congress, rather than perpetuate a fight all Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, might later regret.
