Supporters of President Obama might soon have another reason to ask themselves: “What is he thinking?” With the flourish of a veto pen, the president is likely to disappoint and anger both friends and foes this fall; an interesting choice given his approval-rating challenges.
How will Obama manage to infuriate both conservatives and liberals all at once? By vetoing a defense spending bill that would please national defense conservatives by supporting our troops and please liberals by foolishly ending the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
So why would he miss what some political observers call a win-win opportunity? Is there a good policy justification?
The provision that Obama opposes so strongly that he will veto the bill is actually one many Democrats and Republicans support. If enacted as written, the bill would disappoint social conservatives (a group Obama never counts on) and one interested party, a large defense contractor.
As passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the defense bill funds development of two engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will be the multi-role fighter aircraft of the future for both the U.S. and our allies around the world.
Development of two engines means pitting two manufacturers against one another. The competition will breed innovation and cost savings over the life of the fighter jet’s program. The two-engine approach also means having a backup if for some reason there is a problem with the engine that ultimately makes it into the fuselage of the plane.
For reasons from efficiency to safety, the development of two engines is the chosen approach of the U.S. House of Representatives. It also has a cost-benefit stamp of approval from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The competition that is encouraged by the two-engine approach is, however, not an ideal scenario for manufacturer Pratt and Whitney, which otherwise would fully own the F-35’s engine development and production for as long as the plane is in the sky. That’s big money, billions over decades, so it’s not surprising Pratt and Whitney has pulled out all the stops in its lobbying campaign.
The U.S. Senate will act on the defense-spending bill after it returns from the August recess. If senators agree with their House colleagues and experts at the GAO that the two-engine approach is the best way to spend taxpayers’ hard-earned money, then Obama has promised to uncap his veto pen. This will be big news, and it will be a bad story for the president.
While homosexual rights groups will be disappointed over the missed opportunity to repeal the conservative-supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, most Americans will be stunned by the willingness of the president to put off funding for our troops.
Why is Obama dug in on his heels on this? Is it an example of successful lobbying on behalf of Pratt and Whitney? Could a single defense contractor really have that much influence over the Obama administration?
Or could the F-35 veto threat simply be a straw man that will enable the president to strangle needed support for our troops in the Middle East, thereby hobbling their effectiveness and laying the groundwork for an early withdrawal?
Has his support for so-called progressive social policy in the armed forces been simply lip service to an influential left-wing constituency? I don’t think so.
No one knows the answers to these questions. But they will surely be asked. Many will once again ask “What is he thinking?”
Ken Blackwell is a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rife Associaton.
