The American military is engaged in multiple conflicts and humanitarian missions around the world, yet President Obama promised to veto legislation funding the troops for the remainder of 2011. This is a reprehensible political stunt, and it comes at the expense of our servicemen and women and the families they support.
Yesterday, as efforts to resolve the debate on 2011 government funding continued, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) introduced yet another temporary bill designed to keep the government operating for one more week during negotiations, and in this case, ensure the military portion of the budget is appropriated to eliminate the economic uncertainty facing our troops.
Before a vote was even taken, President Obama issued a Statement of Administration Policy that offered no policy, and merely called Speaker Boehner’s efforts a “distraction”, with the promise to veto the legislation. In fact, Speaker Boehner’s goal was to aid our armed forces by removing the distraction of a looming government shutdown for our troops. The House went on to pass the bill 247-181 with 15 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans.
The American public has clearly spoken that it is demanding budget cuts, but so far nothing has happened in the Senate—not one serious alternative to the budget with $61 billion in cuts the House passed nearly two months ago. That Harry Reid is even allowed at the negotiating table before completing the prerequisites is a mystery, and this latest episode of defense funding angst by he and Obama continues the drama.
Yes I just got word from my daughter in-law over in Afganistan this morning. On the 15th her pay will be reduced from 1400.00 to 590.00 How is she to pay her bills and go and interrogate the women with the Rangers!
Mr. Obama no longer President Does not deserve to be!!!!
I think congress and the president should not get a dime until this mess is fixed, and I agree with you, its both sides..we are broke, why don't these people understand that???
So obama, and harry reid will not fund our troops because of PP..wow, sure tells me a lot about you lib's, you want to give money to people who will murder their children (unborn babies), but don't want our troops to get paid to defend themselves, us and our country! Harry reid demands that cowboy poetry stay in the budget, and cherry blossom festival go on as planned...you're amazing archer..
Here's your obligatory "Bush did it, too" post... (meaning turned his back on the military)
On December 9, 2004 during a press conference, George Bush was asked how the government would respond to soldiers’ complaints that they were getting inadequate armor as they headed into Iraq. Bush responded with this:
…if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I’d want to ask the Secretary of Defense the same question, and that is, are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best. And I have told many families I met with, we’re doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important.
On January 7, 2006, The New York Times reported:
A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
So you think it's OK to not not fund the troops so Republicans can punish an organization that does a lot of good for poor and low income women and probably keeps a lot of women from having abortions with birth control, family planning and pre-natal health care. Nice