STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY - Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011

[TomCADem]

Source: Daily KoS

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2560, the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011.” Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility. Increasing the Federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a Federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.

The bill would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future. H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future. It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, H. R. 2560 could require even deeper cuts, since it conditions an increase in the Federal debt limit on Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. H. R. 2560 sets out a false and unacceptable choice between the Federal Government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.

* * *

If the President were presented this bill for signature, he would veto it.


Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/18/995842/-White-House-threatens-veto-of-Republican-plan-linking-balanced-budget-amendment-to-debt-limit

---

It is amazing that all the news stories discussing President Obama's veto threat fail to mention the fact that the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would require severe cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Here is the text of President Obama's veto threat, yet the corporate media fails to note the highlighted portion regarding Medicare and Social Security. Coincidence?

[Mimosa]

1. Good. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

2. Where are the voices of the rest of our DEM leaders

you mean to tell me the media whores won't give them any air time ?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. K&R

[neoralme]

4. If the Balanced Budget Ammendment is passed, the Republicans will

quickly cut entitlements. The downside is obvious. The upside is that it would create a revolution and many Republicans would never work, and in some cases even walk, again. If we are betrayed on this by Obama, even the most dedicated Obamabot will turn on him.

[jaxx]

5. Did you read the statement?

Twisting it into being betrayed by Obama is damned odd.

[neoralme]

7. Numero Uno answers the post. Irony at its best.

[MADem]

9. +1 nt

[TomCADem]

10. They should just call this the Grover Norquist Amendment

Or, maybe the Fat Dude With The Beard Amendment.

[TomCADem]

11. Obamabot? That Is A Pretty Harsh Slam On DUers Who Are Supportive Of A Democratic President

Don't you think?

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum

[Zorra]

6. "If the President were presented this bill for signature, he would veto it."

Sounds good to me.

I hope that he keeps his word if he is presented with the bill.

[PufPuf23]

8. POTUS Obama had best Veto such legislation.

Medicare expansion is excluded and distanced.

Zeke Emmaunel advised mandates as a step to complete privatization of USA medical care (except not mentioning VA, IndianHS, and some Federal employeess or short-term pols and appointees -- that hold the most empathy for the subset of society).

etc etc etc

We had best drive out the neo-conservatives, neo-liberal, and chickenhawks from our government. This would help the World.

The USA would have the bully pulpit, and humbly still the strength, to take the wise and moral lead, but We do not.