2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSenator Bernie Sanders Votes Against Increasing Defense Spending
http://enewspf.com/2015/11/10/senator-bernie-sanders-votes-against-increasing-defense-spending/I wish all Democratic Party candidates were on top of this issue.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And if the Republicans and third-way (which is a third party) were half as liberal as the old right wing, they would support the same thing Senator Sanders does in this.
https://m.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)They can ask for changes, but Congress creates and passes the military budget in its Military Appropriations Bill each session.
In any case, I believe that military spending has dropped as a percentage of the GNP since 2010.
It's still the largest military budget on the planet, of course, by far. But it takes an act of Congress to actually decrease that or any other spending. The House of Representatives writes the budget. Presidents can only sign or veto what comes out of Congress.
So, yes, Bernie Sanders voted not to increase military spending. As President, he won't be in a position to do that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)nor does it make decisions on the size of the military, or the weapons systems to develop.
And the president doesn't have a veto stamp.
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)Presidents can ask for what they want. Congress can write any bill they wish. Presidents generally sign these bills, because funding the military isn't really an optional thing. So, while Presidents can threaten a veto, those threats are usually pretty hollow. When push comes to shove, supporting the military is a popular decision with voters in general.
Look at the F-35. That whole program is fraught with problems, and the cost per aircraft is obscene. Still, even Bernie Sanders voted for continued funding of the program. We have to have fighter aircraft and there's a company in his state that creates jobs around making part of it. In fact, there are companies in a lot of states doing that.
Decisions about military funding are often made for reasons that make little practical sense. Once a project is underway, defunding it becomes problematical. Many hugely costly projects have been completed, with the resulting system never being used in reality. I give you the so-called "Peacekeeper" missile system.
Presidents have very little control over military spending when it comes down to the actual budget. That's just how it is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)about a vote he made day before yesterday. He's in the Senate. And they held a vote on Tuesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after voting against a bill that increases the level of authorized funding for the Pentagon and other national security agencies by $21 billion in 2016.
“If we are serious about ending waste, fraud, abuse and excessive spending, we have got to focus on all agencies – including the Department of Defense. This bloated Pentagon budget continues to pour money into outdated weapons systems that don’t function properly. The Department of Defense is the only federal agency that cannot pass a clean audit. Many of its major acquisition programs suffer from chronic cost overruns. Virtually every defense contractor has been found guilty or has reached a settlement with the government because of fraudulent and illegal activities. This has got to change.”
http://enewspf.com/2015/11/10/senator-bernie-sanders-votes-against-increasing-defense-spending/
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)As President, he wouldn't even have a vote.
ETA: I actually know the result. It passed in the Senate 91-3. President Obama will sign it, because it's veto-proof. That bill contained a bunch of lousy crap, like prohibiting the closing of the Guantanamo prison facility, a goal close to Obama's heart. Sander's No vote was no more than a token objection to a bill that will become law.
Were he the President, he'd still have to either sign it or let it become law without his signature. The Congress has spoken and in a way that prevents a veto. My point is made. Presidents have little real control over military budgets.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the house and senate leaders, advisors like Summers or Sperling lobbying members of Congress, etc.
No matter how you slice it, it's much more impact on the budget than any single Senator or member of the House.
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)Congress writes all budget bills. Does Bernie Sanders have a lot of influence on members of his own party? Doesn't look like it. The vote was 91-3.
Presidents have virtually no budgetary power over an opposition-controlled Congress. And in the case of military appropriations, even less. He can't veto this bill. The overwhelming majority vote makes that impossible.
Who are the Democrats in Congress endorsing for President? That's who has influence. That's who is getting their support. They all voted for this bill, even though it kills closing Guantanamo. The President has zero influence when the Congress is completely controlled by the opposition party.
Sanders would do no better. Not one bit. He might even do worse.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sanders got more bills and amendments that he wrote passed into law than did Hillary--and the ones she did get passed were mostly ceremonial.
The endorsements are a separate issue entirely. You are claiming a President Sanders, as head of the Democratic Party, would have no influence over Democrats? That's nonsense.
The President has zero influence when the Congress is completely controlled by the opposition party.
Untrue. Presidents always have veto power, the bully pulpit, etc.---and Sanders has a record of being able to work with Republicans as well. Again, the President has much more impact on the budget than any single Rep or Senator.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)The President has the ability to go directly to the people like no one else can. Reagan used it, helped him turn public opinion into favoring what became a disastrous economy for the middle class.
Making an argument for cutting our fraudulent, bloated military budget wouldn't be hard. But it takes a "leader" who WANTS to make changes which isn't in the neoliberal playbook because they're fine with the way things are...
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)Obama's been using it for several years not. He's gotten some things done, but still has to deal with an obstructive Congress.
Congress is the field of action we need to focus on, not the presidency. If we ever learn that, we'll do better.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)taxing the rich, anti-labor trade agreements etc...
Part of what constitutes a change in congress is changing public opinion. It takes a leader with courage who wants change be a force when it comes to public opinion.
It's not going to help electing a Democratic majority and have them continue what has evolved into an economic class war on the poor and middle class. We've all seen that before..
merrily
(45,251 posts)I can barely remember why we bother to elect one.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)limited by our Constitution to specific duties and powers. I do wish everyone read that document at some point every couple of years. I do. It only takes 20 minutes or so and reminds me of how things are supposed to work. They don't work like that, exactly, in reality, but the framework is there.
Separation of Powers is really the key feature in our Constitution. It's one of its best features, and one of the least understood.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... from speaking to the American people and telling them the truth and encouraging them to vote for those who would act on the truth. I can't seem to find that part in my copy.
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)of both houses of Congress. Why? Because Democrats don't show up in mid-term elections. President Obama, for example, speaks to the American people every Saturday. Does anyone listen? Not on DU, they don't. I tried to get people to listen to his radio addresses a few times. Nothing doing.
If we want a progressive Congress, we're going to have to get out there and elect one. We don't bother. We don't even talk about it on Democratic Underground. Apparently, we don't much care, as far as I can see. I keep bringing it up, but those threads go nowhere. And there it is.
Change? You can have it if you want to. But it's going to take a helluva lot of work, year round and in every election. We aren't doing that. The Republicans are, though. They understand where real power lies in this country.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and even if they have the votes to override, he is still cic. he doesn't have to "spend" all the money unless congress tries to force his hand by declaring war, and they don't have the guts (wouldn't work anyway since he's still the commander-in-chief.)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)WASHINGTON — President Obama made good on his threat to veto a $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday, bringing the fight over domestic spending into the realm of national security.
Speaking to reporters for four minutes in a rare public veto message, Obama said the bill fell "woefully short" because it kept across-the-board budget cuts in place, blocked needed military reforms and prohibited him from closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. With a pen stroke of his left hand, he sent the bill back to Congress, saying, "My message to them is simple. Let's do this right."
The bill also contained a $50 billion fund that essential pre funds future war!
Obama does not get enough credit....just saying you are right.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
markmyword
(180 posts)Finally a candidate who says the military funding has to stop!
How about using all those billions of dollars to help AMERICANS get out of poverty, building infrastructure, creating jobs in America and I don't mean minimum wage jobs . Opening factories here in America with good salaries, FREE college for everyone.
Breaking up all these monopolies airlines, banks, etc WOULD create MORE jobs!
Putting money into our school system, and paying teachers good salaries, in order to attract better qualified candidates.
What kinda of country BLAMES ALL there problems on TEACHERS, yet never looks to the poverty, home life, family problems ( mental health problems which come into the school system), lack of jobs, gun violence in a community,etc.
CONGRESS SHOULD be held accountable NOT SCHOOL TEACHERS for the problems America faces!
Health care for all!
Increase the monthly payments to seniors on Social Security, congress should try living on $1200 a month! We're a wealthy country, why do we have money TAKEN out of that S.S. Check. They take $104 for part A and $45 for part D. So that $1200- 149= $1151 each month to live on. Then if you want supplemental insurance, that's more out of that check and prescription medicines!
What's left to live on???
Why not think of PEACEFUL solutions instead of going to war and killing people all the time.
BERNIE HAS to be the Democratic candidate, HIllary IS the establishment and will KEEP the status quo, and support Wall St. And the Corporations.
America can't afford another administration doing NOTHING for the middle class!
Bernie HAS to be the democratic candidate! NO MORE DEFENSE MONEY!
MineralMan
(146,311 posts)You need Congress. You need to vote every two years, not just every four, and you need to bring many others to the polls with you.
Presidents cannot do any of those things. They are not within his or her powers. Congress can, though, if they have a President who will sign them.
Without a Congress to pass legislation to enable the things on your list, they will simply not happen. We seem always to overestimate the power of a President and forget the rest of our federal government.
You have to make it happen in your congressional district and state. Elect Democrats to the House and Senate and get unbreakable majorities in both houses. Then, any Democratic President can and will sign the legislation that makes your goals possible.
Fail to do that and there will be nothing for the President to sign.
High School Civics!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Jeez! This is an issue we can agree on. Can't we?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Walk the walk. 
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Every single vote for defense spending sanity is vitally important.
As Ike said, military spending really is "theft" - not just the F-35, but the
entire Littoral fleet as well, and much else.
It is militarist propaganda to write that, "military spending has dropped as a percentage of the GNP since 2010."
I'm not attacking MM here - just his inaccuracies.
The facts: Counting all the hidden $, actual military spending is close to $ 1.3 trillion per year.
https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/2015%20pie%20chart%20-%20high%20res.pdf
Veterans For Peace
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)how much of a chokehold MIC still has on American politics, policy and the public agenda.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
TM99
(8,352 posts)Congruent, consistent, and always walking his talk. 
PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)drones and other death dealing devices, it is one less dollar we have to spend on programs that help Americans.
AND the thing everyone seems to forget is that these are OUR tax dollars that WE pay in. So keeping the war spending at current bloated levels systematically rips off US taxpayers because our money is being funneled to Halliburton, General Dynamics, Lockheed and others.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)think
(11,641 posts)
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)She's going to form a commission and take a hard look at it.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)This has been brought up earlier this year and again recently, when it was found that the amount was much higher.
The Pentagon/DoD have been paying, very quietly, teams in the NFL, NHL and some NBA for "patriotic" presentations.
Stop ginning up the so-called patriotism and save several hundreds of millions of our dollars.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Virtually every defense contractor has been found guilty or has reached a settlement with the government because of fraudulent and illegal activities.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Chris Mathews will use the term "pacifist".
