Two former Marines vote differently on proposal to fund U.S. military
Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Seth Moulton have a few things in common. Both served in the United States Marine Corps before entering politics and won their seats in Congress as Democrats. Where they differ is over the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023, also known as the NDAA, an annual budget process to designate funding for U.S. military operations.
"The thing that I'm the most proud of is supporting the troops and I think we all have to support the troops. When you when you vote on the NDAA, it's about putting politics aside and doing the right thing by our young men and women in uniform," Moulton told Spectrum News.
149 Republicans were among the "Yea" votes which helped get the House version of the NDAA passed last week. Auchincloss, however, was among a small group of of Democrats to voted against it. Two others Democrats from Massachusetts also voted "Nay" on the House proposals including Representatives Jim McGovern and Ayanna Pressley.
“I voted against the defense budget this year for two reasons. Number one, it's just too much money. The Pentagon is the biggest bureaucracy in the world and I have never met a bureaucracy that couldn't do 10% more with 10% less. But, I've also never met a bureaucracy that's willing to admit that and it's Congress's job to hold the Pentagon to account and say we support your mission but you need to tighten your belt. You need to demonstrate some ingenuity and innovation to achieve your mission with 10% fewer dollars and that is a very reasonable. In fact, it's a necessary imperative that Congress put forward. So, that's number one. Number two is that as an amendment to the defense budget, there was an obscure provision that would derail and impede the offshore wind industry on the Eastern seaboard. Offshore wind is a hugely promising new industry for southeastern Massachusetts. It's going to be a source of clean energy and jobs and I'm not going to vote against the interests of my district," Auchincloss said in an exclusive interview with Spectrum News on Thursday.
The House version of the NDAA is a massive $839 billion and $37 billion more than what President Biden suggested. What Moulton and Auchincloss agree on that is in the House version of the budget proposal would be a 4.6% wage increase for service members and civilians. It also includes an extra “inflation bonus” for those earning less than $45,000 a year.
“There's a pay raise in there. There's improvements in mental health care, there's improvements in base housing, there are provisions to address the needs of military families. There's an awful lot of things that are in this bill, that will make life better for those who put their lives on the line for all the rest of us," Moulton added.
The Senate still has to approve its own version of the NDAA before both chambers come together and work out a final deal. If history is any indication, Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warrren may not vote in favor of it. When the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on the proposal in June, Warren voted against it citing "the Pentagon’s budget is already too high". In the past, Markey has made similar comments and in budget negotiations for the 2022 fiscal year he said, "already-bloated defense budget".
Source:
Angi Gonzalez