I've tweeted on this topic, but I really wanted to provide more of my consolidated take on Defense Spending and Trump's provocative late-term veto. From a political standpoint, I expect Trump's veto to be overridden, likely the first and only time in his expiring election term. The House is back in session Monday, and reportedly McConnell plans a Senate vote Tuesday, assuming a House override; both chambers passed the bill with overwhelming veto-overriding margins.
To me, this is a puzzling move, especially if Trump is flirting with the idea of a 2024 comeback. Backing a strong national defense has been a traditional GOP issue, and in fact Trump initially ran on a strong defense funding platform, arguing Obama had eviscerated the DoD during his tenure. Trump really isn't arguing here that Congress here is undercutting his funding request. Why would he be opposing getting the funding he requested, possibly putting national defense at risk?
I'm not even going to the official White House statement here, because the reasons have been fleshed out in public for weeks:
- Trump opposes, for personal reasons, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and demands its repeal. This basically shields social media providers from liability from user content. Trump is highly incensed that Twitter and other providers have tagged some of his factually-challenged claims (not that he has been censored). We libertarians reject Trump's self-serving position and see Section 230 as consistent with the intent of the First Amendment.
- Trump opposes renaming certain (mostly Southern) military bases named after certain Confederate-era public figures/generals. Now most of us libertarians condemn politically correct wars on Southern heritage but understand addressing a morale issue in today's integrated military.
- Trump argues Congresswoman Cheney and others are tying his hands on tactical decisions like troop withdrawals in the Gulf Region. This one gets the most sympathetic hearing from us; we firmly oppose neo-con interventionists like Cheney. Depending on the nature of the legislation, one could argue that it infringes on the POTUS' duties as Commander-in-Chief or that certain Presidential actions, say involving prospective treaty obligations or violations, must be approved by Congress.
Now the topic of defense funding is a special case for libertarians because we believe that if there is a case for central government, it's for common defense (and a guarantor of individual rights). This does not mean we agree the nature and extent of the DoD: over 800 military bases overseas, multiple alliances, etc., by any measure beyond the mandate to protect our national territory. Never mind the inadequacy of auditing for a vast infrastructure, even political corruption like Congressmen connected to suppliers pushing goods not even requisitioned by the military, others fighting closure of redundant military facilities for fear of economic consequences on local economies.
Many of us minarchists are often mocked by the more purist AnCaps who argue accepting the legitimacy of a minimum mission of government is like a woman being a little bit pregnant, over $700B pregnant; this is a little disingenuous; I don't know, off the top of my head, what is the optimal funding level, but I do know it's significantly less than what Congress passed.
At the risk of oversimplification, I would argue that most libertarians would welcome Trump's veto, like Congressman Justin Amash, not necessarily for Trump's reasons, but as a first step towards getting the bloated defense budget under control
I have to admit to having mixed feelings because I'm a military veteran and I have in the past worked as a defense contractor; don't I have a vested interest in a bloated budget? Well, the military stores information just like the private sector; I currently am a database administrator. I have worked as a consultant or contractor at every level of government, including cities (e.g., Oakland, Chicago), counties (in WI and MN) and state (OK), not to mention multiple federal agencies (National Archives, Patent Trademark Office, NASA, Veteran Benefits, etc.) I've also worked extensively in the private sector (clients include IT products (chip testing, displays, semiconductors, network gear, smart devices, etc.), industrial machinery, paper products, packaging supplies, universities (ERP software), library supplies, industrial supplies, mall retail chains, duty-free shops, tax services, automotive parts (airbags), sugar refiners, nutrition products, marketing research, credit cards, a television channel, insurance, energy companies, etc.) My extensive MIS background (PhD/former professor) also supports other IT professions, and I've often done Unix administration, development and system analysis as ancillary responsibilities. A DBA's skills are fairly generic, not unlike say a military cook, a pilot, nurse or doctor. As a professional, I work to the best of my ability for any client, whether in the private or public sector. I've had to deal with government shutdowns in the past, some were briefer than others, and unlike government employees, we usually don't get backpay.
I have no doubt my livelihood might be impacted by a budget fight between POTUS and Congress. My personal approach is to adapt to circumstances. My issue with Trump is not necessarily his veto, but the rationale of his veto over basically trivial, unrelated reasons; if you're going to fight with Congress, make it worthwhile, like getting defense spending under control.
