The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget released a memo earlier today that listed a variety of reasons why senior advisors would recommend a veto of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the House Armed Services Committee last week.

Among the reasons cited: Southern Arizona Congressman Ron Barber’s amendment preventing the Air Force from moving forward with plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The fate of the Air Force combat jet has become a key debate in the race between Barber (D-CD2) and his likely Republican opponent, former A-10 pilot and squadron commander Martha McSally.

There are plenty of other policy issues that the Statement of Administrative Policy cites, including provisions limiting the ability of the administration to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, retention of all ICBM silos now in operation, and a provision that blocks the administration from proceeding with any plans to close any military bases. But Barber’s amendment got special attention in the report.

You can read the entire memo here, but this is the section regarding the A-10:

Limitations on Retirement of Weapon Systems: The Administration strongly objects to provisions that would restrict the Department’s ability to retire weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance with current strategic and operational plans. These divestitures are critical and would free up funding for higher priority programs. Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to sections 131, 132, and 1026, which are inconsistent with DOD’s fiscal constraints and current priorities. Section 132 would restrict DOD from obligating or expending funds to retire A-10 aircraft. Divesting the A-10 will save over $4.2 billion through FY 2019. The joint force will retain several multi-mission aircraft capable of performing the close air support mission. The Administration also objects to the Committee authorizing Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for the continued operation of the A- 10 fleet. Longstanding criteria for OCO eligibility clearly exclude such uses.

This article appears in May 15-21, 2014.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

9 replies on “Obama Admin Threatens Veto of Defense Bill Over A-10 Amendment, Among Other Provisions”

  1. I sorta prefer the career military guys and gals to decide what systems we need, rather than politicians who just don’t want bases/contractors to close in their district and risk being thrown out of office and having a find a real job – like lobbyist or other huckster.

  2. As much as I love the A-10, the plane is forty(!) years old and if the DOD doesn’t feel it’s worth keeping around, maybe it should go away. I can’t imagine that DM would just close down, not with AMARG there.

  3. I’m all for cutting the ridiculously bloated military budget whenever and wherever possible, but how is it a “debate” in the CD-2 race? Doesn’t McSally support retaining the A-10 as well?

  5. The A-10 is not the only unnecessary system. The military recommended shutting the entire base down following the BRAC study, but it was “saved” by local politicians and businessmen who feed at the government trough.

  6. @Cascabel that is not true. None of the BRACs – in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005 – ever recommended shutting DM down.

  7. What about the Amash Conyers amendment? It came extremely close to passage last year. With Greenwald’s book out now, there should be added pressure to pass the measure which would put pressure on the NSA to stop the wholesale capture and storage of ALL telephone and internet traffic.

    http://personalliberty.com/amash-takes-nsa…

  8. IMHO it intends to veto, delay, or discount any and all measures that will make America, if not stronger, at least on an even playing field considering the advancements in, and obvious lack of concern for use, of horrific, ILLEGAL (gas) weapons systems. It does not care unless the measures help load up the ineligible, but someway ending up on the roles, of voters who despise America like it and its lackeys. America, grow a pair or suffer the consequences of being a second-rate country.

  9. There are a lot of weapons systems out there beyond forty that are working just fine. We went out and bought the Beretta 9mm and now we’re going back to refurbished M1911s. Springfield rifles still make a great sniper rifle and it is roughly the same age as the .45. Updated M~14s are also back in the field and then we have the current version of the M~16, the M~4.
    And then we have what is supposed to be the 5th generation {or is it 6th generation?} fighters, in this case the F~22 & F~35 struggling to find a place in our arsenal. What we’re really getting is a next generation TFX. Anybody remember that mess which eventually became McNamara’s F~111?
    So, jut as a resurrection of the production line for the Douglas A~1 was nixed in favor of the more glamorous, “one call gets it all” F~111 the A~10 will succumb to the Congressional pressures to advance the technology through this fighter that will have the same “teething” problems of the F~111 as well as the A~7.
    The F~111 eventually became a great airplane but the A~10 has been even better from the day of the first pencil mark on the design sheets. We don’t need a return to the McNamara days and while I hope this promised veto is one promise this president will keep it is my more fervent hope the Congress of next year will be a more workable one and reallocate the F~35 money toward a truly proven workhorse airplane. The retirement process for the A~10 is to take place over several years so “hope springs eternal”.

Comments are closed.