AD
“Congress,” The Hill reports, “is barreling toward a veto showdown with President Trump over the mammoth must-pass annual defense policy bill.” At issue: The annual National Defense Authorization Act, which as usual has little to do with actual defense.
NDAA bill to fuel more corporate welfare into the military-industrial complex
Trump says he’ll veto the NDAA if it requires military bases named after Confederate generals to be re-named, as Congress desires.
He also says he’ll veto the bill if it doesn’t include his desired “reform” to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, giving the government power to control social media platforms’ content moderation policies.
The main purpose of the annual NDAA is to feed hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare into the maw of the military-industrial complex we’ve been ruled by since World War Two.
Congress’ utilization of the “must-pass” bill status
A secondary feature, often utilized by Congress, and occasionally by presidents using the threat of veto, is to use its supposed “must-pass” status as a shoehorn for forcing controversial items into law.
This year, we’ve got a twofer on that secondary feature, and a game of chicken between President Trump and Congress.
In his four years in office, Trump has vetoed eight bills, fewer than any president since Warren G. Harding. Unless this NDAA fight goes south on him, he’s also set to become the first president since Lyndon Baines Johnson to finish his presidency without Congress overriding at least one veto.
Who’s going to blink? Who knows?
Congress: Military spending bills are “must-pass” material
Congress’s heavy gun in the NDAA fight is the pretense, put on by politicians and parroted by media, that military spending bills are “must-pass” material. But they aren’t.
Unlike “mandatory” spending such as Social Security, which occurs automatically absent congressional action to stop it, “defense” spending is “discretionary.”
Neither the Constitution nor any existing legislation requires the US government to spend one thin dime on the armed forces. In fact, the Constitution forbids Congress to fund the army for more than two years at a time (the idea being that standing armies are dangerous).
Prior presidents vetoed these authorizations
Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all vetoed annual “defense” authorizations. The world didn’t end when they did it, and the world won’t end if Trump does it.
But it’s a silly fight, this one.
Congress, or the president, or both, should take a stand against spending many times as much taxpayer money on the military as could possibly be justified by any rational definition of “defense.” A fight over how much to cut from future NDAAs, and how quickly to cut it, would be a fight actually worth having.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Heartland Newsfeed
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
play_arrow
play_arrow
play_arrow
Columnists
KNAPP: There’s no such thing as a “must-pass” bill
todayDecember 10, 2020 3
“Congress,” The Hill reports, “is barreling toward a veto showdown with President Trump over the mammoth must-pass annual defense policy bill.” At issue: The annual National Defense Authorization Act, which as usual has little to do with actual defense.
NDAA bill to fuel more corporate welfare into the military-industrial complex
Trump says he’ll veto the NDAA if it requires military bases named after Confederate generals to be re-named, as Congress desires.
He also says he’ll veto the bill if it doesn’t include his desired “reform” to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, giving the government power to control social media platforms’ content moderation policies.
The main purpose of the annual NDAA is to feed hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare into the maw of the military-industrial complex we’ve been ruled by since World War Two.
Congress’ utilization of the “must-pass” bill status
A secondary feature, often utilized by Congress, and occasionally by presidents using the threat of veto, is to use its supposed “must-pass” status as a shoehorn for forcing controversial items into law.
This year, we’ve got a twofer on that secondary feature, and a game of chicken between President Trump and Congress.
In his four years in office, Trump has vetoed eight bills, fewer than any president since Warren G. Harding. Unless this NDAA fight goes south on him, he’s also set to become the first president since Lyndon Baines Johnson to finish his presidency without Congress overriding at least one veto.
Who’s going to blink? Who knows?
Congress: Military spending bills are “must-pass” material
Congress’s heavy gun in the NDAA fight is the pretense, put on by politicians and parroted by media, that military spending bills are “must-pass” material. But they aren’t.
Unlike “mandatory” spending such as Social Security, which occurs automatically absent congressional action to stop it, “defense” spending is “discretionary.”
Neither the Constitution nor any existing legislation requires the US government to spend one thin dime on the armed forces. In fact, the Constitution forbids Congress to fund the army for more than two years at a time (the idea being that standing armies are dangerous).
Prior presidents vetoed these authorizations
Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all vetoed annual “defense” authorizations. The world didn’t end when they did it, and the world won’t end if Trump does it.
But it’s a silly fight, this one.
Congress, or the president, or both, should take a stand against spending many times as much taxpayer money on the military as could possibly be justified by any rational definition of “defense.” A fight over how much to cut from future NDAAs, and how quickly to cut it, would be a fight actually worth having.
Thomas Knapp
Thomas L. Knapp is the director and senior news analyst for the Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. Knapp is a journalism veteran of over 35 years and a full-time libertarian writer, editor and publisher since 2000.
Knapp has been the publisher of Rational Review News Digest since 2003 and a former columnist for Antiwar.com.
Like this:
Discover more from Heartland Newsfeed
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Written by: Thomas Knapp
Bill Clinton Communications Decency Act discretionary spending Donald Trump George H.W. Bush George W. Bush Jimmy Carter military industrial complex National Defense Authorization Act Ronald Reagan Section 230 Warren Harding
Similar posts
Opinion-Editorial
OP-ED: USPS plan writes off rural America to save a buck
todaySeptember 30, 2024 43
Columnists
BURCHAM: Keeping calm during political conversations
todayAugust 20, 2024 38
Post comments (0)
Sports Talk
Titillating Sports
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm
Christian Music Variety
Auto DJ
12:00 am - 9:00 pm
Top Posts