Obama vetoes $612 billion defense bill in rebuke to GOP

The rare presidential veto marked the latest wrinkle in the ongoing fight between Obama and Republicans over whether to increase federal spending – and how.

Susan Walsh/AP
President Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, a sweeping $612 billion defense policy bill, on Thursday in the Oval Office.

President Obama vetoed a sweeping $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday in a rebuke to congressional Republicans, and insisted they send him a better version that doesn't tie his hands on some of his top priorities.

In an unusual Oval Office ceremony, Obama praised the bill for ensuring the military stays funded and making improvements on armed forces retirement and cybersecurity. Yet he pointedly accused Republicans of resorting to "gimmicks" and prohibiting other changes needed to address modern security threats.

"Unfortunately, it falls woefully short," Mr. Obama said. "I'm going to be sending it back to Congress, and my message to them is very simple: Let's do this right."

In no mood to negotiate, Republicans vowed to muster the votes to override him.

The rare presidential veto marked the latest wrinkle in the ongoing fight between Obama and Republicans who control Congress over whether to increase federal spending – and how.

Four years after Congress passed and Obama signed into law strict, across-the-board spending limits, both parties are eager to bust through the caps for defense spending. But Obama has insisted that spending on domestic programs be raised at the same time, setting off a budget clash with Republicans that shows no signs of a quick resolution.

To sidestep the budget caps, known in Washington as sequestration, lawmakers added an extra $38.3 billion to a separate account for wartime operations that is immune to the spending limits. The White House has dismissed that approach, arguing it fails to deal with the broader problem or provide long-term budget certainty for the Pentagon.

Obama also rejects the bill as written due to provisions making it harder for him to transfer suspected terror detainees out of the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a key campaign promise that Obama is hard-pressed to fulfill before his term ends. The White House has also expressed concerns over provisions preventing military base closures and funding equipment beyond what the military says it needs.

Republicans erupted in near-universal criticism. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, called the veto "misguided, cynical, and downright dangerous." And more than a dozen House and Senate Republicans, including Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, joined in accusing Obama of putting politics ahead of the troops.

"Congress should not allow this veto to stand," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Yet the White House and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi insisted Democrats had the votes to ensure Obama's veto stays in place. Barring a veto override, Congress will have to revise the bill or try to settle the larger budget dispute.

Obama has vetoed only a handful of bills before, generally in private. In an effort to call attention to his concerns, the White House invited reporters and photographers to witness him vetoing the bill.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.