Skip to main content

View Diary: The Left's Sequester Leverage (299 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, MPociask, Code Monkey

    Obama himself is against defense cuts. He promised in the debates that there would be no cuts to defense. Thus, he won't be able to get much,ever age out of it.

    •  Seems to never follow up on veto threats (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, MPociask

      *Note this is an authorization (policy) bill.  FY 2013 Defense Appropriations Bill is not yet complete. But this indicates clearly that the Pentagon is not wilting away for lack of funds.

      Defense Bill: Obama Signs $633 Billion Measure Into Law

      By MATTHEW DALY 01/03/13 10:46 AM ET EST AP
      HONOLULU — President Barack Obama signed a $633 billion defense bill for next year despite serious concerns about the limits Congress imposed on his handling of terror suspects and lawmakers' unwillingness to back the cost-saving retirement of aging ships and aircraft.

      Obama had threatened to veto the measure because of a number of concerns, but relented because he couldn't pick and choose specific sections. However, in a statement, the president spelled out his concerns about restrictions on his ability to carry out his constitutional duties as commander in chief.

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:28:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ratio of veto threats to actual vetos (5+ / 0-)

        is pretty high with U.S. Presidents. They're usually aimed at specific provision of a multi-part bill and weighed against the probability of an override.

        PBO has only vetoed twice - and done so successfully. In most cases, the veto threat is resolved when the offending legislation is modified or removed by Congress. In others, he has issued a "signing statement", just like previous Presidents, which paves the way for "non-implementation" or a court challenge to the new law.

        Have you noticed?
        Politicians who promise LESS government
        only deliver BAD government.

        by jjohnjj on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:51:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Congress changed the bill to avoid veto. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He didn't follow through with his veto threat because the threat worked.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:44:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  this site kills me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kat68, SilentBrook, glynis

      on one hand lamenting her does not keep promises then quotes where he promises not to make defense cuts.......which is it?

      was this snark?

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:37:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  in large part (6+ / 0-)

      because the Pentagon had already identified many cuts they were willing to make, weapons programs they want to shut down, some base and services consolidation, some of which Congress voted against based on pork to their districts.   The Defense cuts in the sequester amount more to a decrease in the rate of increase of spending rather than real cuts.

    •  He's so against them that he included them... (0+ / 0-)

      in the sequester.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:43:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site