In all the talk about HR 2560: To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget, the vote and the veto promised by President Obama, something obvious seems to have been missed. Forgeting all the other factors, and even what the Bill proposes, who is President Obama talking to?
The truth is that HR 2560 is not targeting Republicans. If every Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the Bill, and every Republican in the Senate voted for it, the Bill could not pass and appear on President Obama’s desk. Do the numbers, or simply remember that Democrats still control the Senate. Therefore this CANNOT become a Bill requiring the signature of the President – without Democrats.
Thus, simple deduction leads us to the obvious conclusion. President Obama is casting a net to keep Democrats from defecting. He is in effect publicly ostracizing any Democrat that would break ranks, even if their constituents think the Bill is worthwhile and demand their elected official vote for the Bill. It is a blatant and direct call to uphold Party over the will of the people, and the public welfare be damned.
What are the merits of HR 2560? Did President Obama even mention them? Did he debate the veracity of the Bill, or the conclusion of what the Bill would do to the deficit and rampant spending of government (which has been enourmous under both Democrat and Republican alike).
There are calls that seniors will not get SSI checks, which would only be halted if the President instructs the Treasury not to pay. There is an insistence among Democrat leadership that cuts in spending cannot happen. There is a mocking of proposals from Republicans. But there is no offer from President Obama for a counter deal. There is no set of definitive areas to cut spending from. There is no plan, seemingly, beyond increasing taxes on Americans already shouldering the bulk of the burden – especially in the economic downturn that Democrats refuse to address as their problem as well as the publics.
HR 2560 states, in part:
In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).
Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection
(1) Social Security, function 650.
(2) Medicare, function 570.
(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.
(4) Net Interest, function 900.
Does that sound like stopping seniors from being taken care of? Or is it a guarntee to fulfill our national obligation to them? It goes on to say,
ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.
Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term ‘GDP outlay limit’ means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to–
(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by
(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.
This stops the rampant spending spree that both Democrats and Republicans have been on for decades. It prevents spending money at a pace that will cause the deficit to quickly exceed all the money in the world combined. It limits the government in what it can spend money on, not unlike the budgets that Americans have been living on for several years now.
Lastly it demands that there be a requirement to balnance the budget. Again like Americans across the nation do every week they get paid. The one item that both Democrats and many Republicans agree should be removed. The one item that Governent requires to be removed if it wants to continue to grow at the pace set by President Obama.
Yes indeed, HR 2560 is outrageous. In that it has been proposed in the face of no counter proposal, at a time when the need for the nation, short and long term, is at a peak.
Let’s see, it protects SSI, Medicare, and Veterans, groups that Democrats tout like badges as their herd of protected cattle. Would a Democrat vote to take care of this group?
The Bill limits spending, which is a factor that led the entire 2010 mid-term election. It addresses a problem that everyone outside of Washington DC plainly sees and understands. It is politically timely, and fiscally sensible. Again, could a Democrat stand in front of constituents and proudly say they voted for a long term solution to a problem so big other politicians run from it?
The answer to 2 of the 3 proposals of the Bill are yes. Which scares the White House and Democrat leaders. Thus the vocal and highly public veto threat. And the promise of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to completely ignore the Bill.
Some would call leadership doing the right thing, even at a political negative result. Others believe that using fear-mongering (and using the elderly as a weapon is just that in our opinion) without any offer of resolution is leadership. You can define leadership any way you choose. But President Obama had made it clear that elected Democrats do NOT have the same priveledge – even at the cost of the will of their constituents.
Again we ask, is this an example of the Change and Hope and bi-partisan leadership that elected President Obama?
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass – help keep us going. We appreciate your support.