Let's talk about Warren's vote for the $700B defense budget - Is it justifiable as a Progressive?

I saw a headline recently going after our girl Lizzy Warren for signing H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Since it has become part of critical conversation about Warren as a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary, I decided to research more into the vote, to see if I could justify why a progressive leader would support a defense bill that increased military spending by $30B more than Trump was even asking for.

That doesn't sound good, and I don't want to have to defend it to a bunch of trolls online or to those following the semi-establishment headlines trying to convince them that flipping Beto - who voted to gut Dodd-Frank and put your money on the line for Wall Street Speculation while Warren was fighting it - is the same as Warren. He didn't beat Count Chocula and he isn't progressive regarding banking or Wall Street legislation. #FactsMatter Let him win something and come back later ... and then we can talk about how he chose to put taxpayers on the line for the exact risky behavior that lead to 2008, while an actual progressive was fighting it. But I digress...

Like many Sanders fans, I've had a turbulent admiration of Warren as a result of the 2016 campaign. Personally, right after the election I felt slighted by two things:

1. She should have called out the Clinton's for electioneering in her state and illegally visiting the inside of polling locations as a celebrity meet-and-greet, violating state law and backing up traffic for would-be voters.

2. She should have endorsed Bernie like Merkley did. It's called courage.

I've gotten over both of these because, if you think about it, she wasn't wrong. None of us fully understood the lengths the Clinton's were going to go to to secure that nomination, and she was right, they were NOT going to lose the primary. So she declined to endorse because she wanted to protect her Consumer Finance Protection Bureau from Clinton. There are worse reasons to be silent, but its a very chicken-egg style scenario of what-if she had come out earlier. We won't ever know, but what I do know is she's spent every day since then fighting for what was right, and I care about policy more than identity stuff, so lets dive in and do some fact finding on why someone progressive would have ever made this vote. I'm going to take you on my fact-finding journey here:

So, what is this thing and who else voted on it?

H.R. 2810 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 passed on September 18, 2017 with a vote of: 89 -8. So lets all first acknowledge that this vote was going to pass with or w/o Warren, and while I accept that that is not a good defense, I also want to show you how many other Democrats also voted for this bill:

Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cortez Masto (D-NV) Donnelly (D-IN) Duckworth (D-IL) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Harris (D-CA) Hassan (D-NH) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Hirono (D-HI) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Manchin (D-WV) Markey (D-MA) McCaskill (D-MO) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Peters (D-MI) Reed (D-RI) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Van Hollen (D-MD) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

I asked myself why both Durbin and Reed would be on this... then I checked the 8 Nay votes:

Sanders and Leahy from VT, Merkley and Myden from OR and Gillibrand (NY) were your 5 democratic 'protest votes,' joined by the 3 Republican/Libertarians who vote down every spending thing (Rand Paul and the other ones).

I continued researching the bill, even though internally I began to question "why is this on her?" as I saw the massive number of supporters. But, my conscious got the best of me and I decided to hold her to a higher standard, and pressed on to find out what EW's defense for this was. Here was her official statement:

"In my first year on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I've focused on supporting servicemembers and their families, and on strengthening our national security. While I do not support everything in this defense bill, on balance I believe it will have a direct and positive impact on the lives of our men and women in uniform, and that it will do a lot of good for Massachusetts and for our nation."

OK, so she's saying she negotiated something she wanted into the bill for her vote to benefit families as well as strengthen national security. This was further confirmed by the spin piece her office did after the vote, explaining what provisions Warren added to the bill to justify her signature. So, now I want to know...

What did she get in exchange for this vote?

"Is whatever she got added to the bill worth me having to defend this stupid bullshit?" - Me on Google search number 5, while trying not to wish I could be on the Right, where facts don't matter :P

Here is my TL/DR of the provisions she won, see the full official list here.

• "Requires the Department of Defense to prioritize civilian victims of terror, making it easier for individuals who suffer traumatic injuries and require specialized treatment to receive care at military medical facilities."

Um, yes. I agree with this, I want some of these dollars doing that instead of other awful things. Good one. Next:

• "Holds the Trump Administration accountable for actions overseas by requiring an annual report detailing civilian casualties caused as a result of U.S. military operations. This reporting provision is also reflected in Senator Warren's Preventing Civilian Casualties in Military Operations Act, and follows a 2014 speech she delivered on the negative consequences of civilian deaths for U.S. national security."

Yep. Next:

• Provisions to stop debt collector harassment of service-people, one guaranteeing safe working conditions for contractors, provisions to strengthen sexual harassment prosecution.

Not sure how you can be mad at any of that. Next:

• $43 Million in housing and safety updates to bases in her state.

Um, that's amazing. Next:

• "medical study on the impact of exposure to blast pressure, which will require DOD to review safety precautions surrounding heavy weapons training to account for emerging research on blast exposure"

... guys all of these things are so good. And Last:

• "an unclassified version of the Nuclear Posture Review be made available to the public" as well as "reporting requirement to require an assessment of the cybersecurity threats to the electric grid"

Ok. Yes. I think she did the right thing. I think she fought for measures that help people in a system rigged by Boeing, and I think she got results that really did make meaningful differences in the lives of everyday people in exchange for her signature, instead of cash in her bank account or campaign fund, which I accept.

I still like Bernie and Tulsi a little more, the first because he's why I'm typing to you right now instead of resting while my kids are asleep, the second because she said "I don't fear Clintons" when she endorsed us. But having Warren on the debate floor will only be a positive thing for the average American, who are better represented every time her anti-Wall Street, pro-Medicare for All, pro-worker agenda gets a platform. Especially when we all start having to listen to Biden and whoever else they try and force on us, we'll want her there as a check.