Obama issues veto threat against House GOP debt plan

President Obama speaks at a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House July 15, 2011 in Washington, DC. Obama discussed the ongoing budget and debt limit negotiations with Congressional Republicans and Democrats.

/ Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Updated at 2:45 p.m. ET

The White House on Monday issued a veto threat against the House Republican plan for balancing the budget and raising the debt ceiling, saying the plan is "inconsistent with [a] responsible framework to restore fiscal responsibility."

The GOP "cut, cap and balance" plan "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," the White House said in a statement.

The statement reiterates the argument President Obama made during a press conference on Friday, when he dismissed the GOP plan as empty politicking with unrealistic policy goals.

With talks stalled over a plan to raise the debt ceiling, the House is set to vote on the "cut, cap and balance" plan on Tuesday. Washington leaders have just two weeks to reach a deal before August 2, when the Obama administration says the U.S. would be "running on fumes" without an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The U.S. could risk defaulting on its loans or failing to meet its other financial obligations, which could significantly disrupt the U.S. and world economy, they say.

The House "cut, cap and balance"plan makes raising the debt ceiling contingent on a balanced budget amendment. It would also cap government spending at 18 percent of economic output over the next 10 years.

The plan would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, since that is the increase requested by the president. However, the plan would actually make even more in spending cuts -- as much as $111 billion in 2012 alone.

It its statement today, the White House said, "Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility."

The House Republican plan, the statement said, would undercut the United States' ability to invest in the future and lead to severe cuts across great swaths of government spending.

The White House maintains that Mr. Obama is still interested in seeking a deal reduces the deficit by as much as $4 trillion, but in a "balanced" manner.

Update: House Speaker John Boehner released a statement in response to the president's veto threat, saying that the White House must be willing to "demonstrate more courage" if they're going to forge a deal.

"It's disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said. "While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn't serious about making the same tough choices. While the House is once again acting responsibly, the administration still won't say what cuts it's willing to make to end Washington's spending binge and the economic uncertainty it's creating."

More from MoneyWatch:

Debt Ceiling: Why You Shouldn't Rush to Change Your Portfolio
Opinion: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Please Ban These Four Products!

15 Photos

War of words over the debt

[godzillamozilla]

So they want to put more weight on the middle class but gutting our social programs like SS. Nice. Good luck getting blood from this stone. Every month I get further behind on bills. I've gone past trying to decide which bill to pay this month. But somehow Wall Street and oil are making profits, getting subsidies/bails, and parting it up and -I- get left with the bill according to the GOP. F*** that. Close loopholes, I'm about to 'default' myself.

Look at what happens when you create an impoverished, uneducated class down in South and Central America. It becomes a race to the bottom that is nearly impossible to get out of. You can't run a government without revenue, and yes you NEED revenue for those evil socialist things like roads and police to keep an effective society all you Tea anarchists. But that's great for the ruling class GOPs. Hey Teapublicans, you all aren't going to win the lottery and become rich, quit chasing that pipe dream because you're taking the ship down with you.

[noloyalisti]

Again using Tea Bag and plan in the same sentence. There is no plan other that to turn us all into worker slaves for their profit. That is why the billionaire front group is still spewing the garbage about the failed free market and government interference, etc. What a crock of garbage.

[grannysunni]

Obama has no plan yet criticizes the Republicans. He says "revenues" which is his code word for taxes. We can't afford another 4 years of him. 2012 can't get here fast enough.

[wfw3536]

This treat of a veto shows Obama is all talk. When it comes down to it he couldn't survive if he couldn't continue spending us into a third world country. We have reached a time when we need to put the brakes on politicans and their endless spending when we have to borrow 42 cents of every dollar.

[iamproteus]

wfw, I agree with your last sentence. The first two are nothing more than partisan BS.

[JimBoulter]

I posted this reply, but as it is on page 2, I'll repost, because lots have similar thoughts on why this is just politicking that was okay then but not now...

by Player7777777 July 18, 2011 2:23 PM EDT
"Everything was golden when Bush raised the debt ceiling 14 times though."


Why does everyone forget that Bush was the lamest of ducks, with both the House and the Senate controlled by the Democrats at the end of his term when everything starting taking a turn to ridiculous debt, etc.?

I'm not saying he was not at least partly to blame. I'm not saying that the Republicans shouldn't have done better. I think 90% of the population of DC, on both sides of the aisle, needs to go back to their day jobs. But all of these issues that started "under Bush" were at their worst under a Dem controlled House and Senate.

Bush raised the debt limit 3.01 trillion in the first SIX years while Republicans controlled Congress. Democrats took control of Congress in Jan. 2007 and raised the debt ceiling 2.25 Trillion in TWO years. So under Bush, with both a Republican and Democrat Congress, raised the debt limit a total of 5.26 Trillion in EIGHT years.

Obama took office in Jan 2009 and has increased the debt ceiling 3 Trillion and wants another 2.5 Trillion increase bringing him to 5.5 Trillion in TWO AND A HALF years!

[Wisdomwithage]

People in the media keep on viewing Obama as if he were a leader in these critically serious debt limit and entitlement spending talks. When you have someone at the helm of a ship who has never learned how to sail, or ever had their own ship ... even a rowboat ... as a passenger you're in real serious trouble.

Can you imagine IBM, or Intel, or Exxon having a CEO who never even ran a lemonade stand as a child, demanding that it be his way or the highway? I'd take the highway!

[Zann-Zel]

So when this next election comes up I assume you'll be voting for Obama...since he WILL be the only one in the race with any Presidential experience!

[Wisdomwithage]

So what you're saying, Zann-Zel is that if someone with zero business experience is "signed" to a 4 year contract, and during those four years he/she runs their company into the ground, they should have his contract extended?

Get a life! Your logic astounds even me.

[The Invisible Hand]

Here is an idea contact your congressional leaders in both the house and senate; I have. This is how I approached the letters and e-mails.

1. Do you support the debt ceiling raise? Maybe, on the condition congress passes a balanced budget in both the house and senate signed by the POTUS. I am concerned that we will borrow and spend with no accountability. There HAS to be a plan tied to it on how that money will be spent and how we will not ask to borrow more money ever again!

2. Do you think the tax system is fair? I told them NO, I also offered my opinion on solutions to this issue.

3. If you are happy or unhappy with how they are representing you as a voter. I told two out of three I am happy with what I have seen in their voting record.


What have you told your representatives?

[JimBoulter]

"However, the plan would actually make even more in spending cuts -- as much as $111 billion in 2012 alone."

And what's wrong with that? The common man sees $111B as an unfathomable number (and it is to me), but it is less than 1% of the over $14T current ceiling. It is less than 5% of the $2.3T suggested increase.

If the people in Washington can't find a way to slow down the bleeding by more than 5%, we need new people in Washington. Notice that is just slowing down the *over*spending by 5%. And that seems unreasonable to someone? The White House? CBS News? Not me. That's an easy number to comprehend. Only 5%. Less than 1%. Either way you look at it, it is still just barely moving towards what should be a no-brainer goal of -0- on the bottom the of budget.

[steve9ellsworth]

In the interest of some common sense and a desire for the truth, it should be stated that the creation of this mess had little to do with what has happened over the past couple of years related to spending. We now have in practice a commitment to show the cost of the wars in the budget rather than not including, as before. Huge difference! The president did not issue a threat to veto this next gimmick of "cut, cap and balance." Instead he made a promise. The difference in semantics is worth noting.
BTW, to cut, to cap and to balance is a spectacular idea and should be the goal of every budget whether it be individual, corporate or nation, but it must be done (in the case of the U.S. Government) with democracy as its guiding principle...what is best for the greatest majority of our citizens. I think most of what we see and hear is geared toward the powerful, the wealthy and special interests. Just sayin'

[Zann-Zel]

You're right - they need to consider what is best for most of the people - not what is best for the people with the most money!

[Jakesterman]

Obama has no leverage. The House will pass a modest increase in the debt ceiling and modest spending cuts ($500 billion each). The House should then adjourn and go on vacation. Then it will be up to Reid and Obama to sign or veto.

[Zann-Zel]

The veto IS his leverage! LOL!

But I heard his his press secretary this morning saying, the American People's wishes are his leverage, as they should be!