US Military Budget Policy Fight Coming between Senate and Obama

At a Senate Appropriations Committee defense subcommittee hearing on May 6, retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey, said the world is in the most uncertain global security environment he has seen in his 40 years of service. The military understands it must get costs under control, he said. But, he added, it can't be more important than protecting the nation : "In my judgment,...we are at the bottom edge of our manageable risk in achieving and fulfilling our national security strategy, as it is currently designed.” ~~~~~ Congress members have lined up to stop an Army plan to cut 40,000 troops and reduce the force from 490,000 to 450,000 by 2018. "People who believe the world is safer, that we can do with less defense spending and 40,000 fewer soldiers, will take this as good news. I am not one of those people," Representative Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, says. The House Armed Services Committee has consistently warned about the size and pace of reductions in both end strength and defense spending and the negative impact on the country's national security. Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the Army's plan a "dangerous consequence of budget-driven strategy. With global instability only increasing, and with just 33% of the Army's brigade combat teams ready for deployment and decisive operations, there is simply no strategic basis to cut Army force structure below the pre-9/11 level of 490,000....Any conceivable strategic rationale for this cut to Army end-strength has been overturned by the events of the last few years from the rise of ISIS, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and more," McCain said. ~~~~~ Now, Republicans are heading for a veto showdown with President Obama over the defense bill. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will focus the Senate on the $612 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week, despite a White House veto threat. Obama has threatened to veto every defense bill for the past six years, but has never done so. But, the White House says that because the bill contains many policy fights, the President will hold firm this year. After lawmakers released their conference bill, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called it an “irresponsible way to fund our national defense priorities.” Senate Republicans seem ready to try to force the President to issue his fifth veto - this time on legislation they say is vital to national security. Senator McCain said : "If the President vetoes the NDAA, at this time of mounting global threats, he will be prioritizing politics and process over the security of our nation and the well-being of our armed forces." Republicans say Obama shouldn’t veto the defense bill, since, while it outlines Pentagon policy, it doesn’t appropriate money. Democrats say the extra $38 billion provided through the overseas contingency operations (OCO) fund will let the Pentagon circumvent congressionally mandated budget caps. They demand a long-term deal to increase funding for defense and - a significant red flag - nondefense programs. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter also recommends that Obama veto the bill : “It attempts to evade the question of overall fiscal responsibility with the so-called OCO gimmick which is objectionable to me and to others in other agencies.” Once again, Senate Democrats could stop the bill, as they recently blocked a bill to fund military construction and veterans’ benefits, by preventing the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the Senate floor. ~~~~~ Dear readers, it is unthinkable for Democrats to vote against military-readiness policy and veterans' benefits without incurring the wrath of American voters. But so far, they have escaped. It highlights the real GOP problem -- it needs a leader able to speak with authority on key issues. The maxi-field of 2016 candidates spews me-first views that the Democratic Party and its mainstream media cherrypick to back-attack and smother the GOP's voice on issues vital to America's future.