Obama will veto flawed continuing resolution

By CAP’s Valeri Vasquez, CAP Energy Policy Special Assistant.

On February 15, the Obama Administration made clear that it would veto a continuing budget resolution that slashes public health protection and other essential programs.  Meanwhile, at Tuesday’s White House press conference, President Obama referenced scalpels and machetes to illustrate his well-honed point about trimming the discretionary budget.

In a strongly-worded statement of administration policy, the White House said that

if the President is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks, or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the President will veto the bill.

And yes, the underlining is from the original statement.

The discretionary budget, Obama explained, merits a closer look if Americans are to win the future. Key investments are required in scientific research and development as well as education. Above all, earmarks will not be tolerated.

Obama issued a firm warning to special interest groups, reiterating his State of the Union pledge to “veto any bills that contain earmarks.”  He emphasized that

unjustifiable spending through the tax code, [and] through tax breaks do not make us more competitive, do not create jobs here in the United States of America.

The need for decisive action is all the “more urgent and more serious” now that the country is beginning to pull out of the depths of the economic crisis, he said.

This third budget reflects a change in focus.  The economy is now growing again.  People are more hopeful.  And we’ve created more than a million jobs over the last year.  Employers are starting to hire again, and businesses are starting to invest again.

But growth cannot take off when special interests are weighing down the budget.

What is absolutely true is that it’s going to be difficult to achieve serious corporate tax reform if the formula is, lower our tax rates and let us keep all our special loopholes.  If that’s the formula, then we’re not going to get it done.

I wouldn’t sign such a bill, and I don’t think the American people would sign such a bill.

Hear, hear.

Read the full transcript of the February 15th press conference here.

Read the statement of administration policy here.

Valeri Vasquez is CAP Energy Policy Special Assistant.

3 Responses to Obama will veto flawed continuing resolution

  1. Prokaryotes says:

    Dirty oil money has succeeded with manipulating opinion on basis of the free internet they use an army of willing minions to post and comment on the topic of climate change to create the illusion that many oppose climate action.

    In fact 90% of the people want a livable climate and trust the government to do the right thing. Dirty oil money (in parts from tax payer subsidies) is used even today to roll out the propaganda from Koch and Rex Tillerson and alike.

    It’s time to shut down the wrong doing of their propaganda machine, by any means necessary. Because the survival of our species depends on it.

  2. Christopher S. Johnson says:

    I’d like to read into this, and I think it was your intention to imply, that Obama would veto a budget that defunds climate science at NASA and NOAA, and greenhouse gas enforcement at the EPA. But I don’t see THOSE WORDS here.

  3. Ziyu says:

    Republicans today criticized Obama’s budget for favoring renewables over fossil fuels. They said it was distorting the market. What they didn’t mention was that their budget plan involved cutting funding for renewables while maintaining funding for fossil fuels. They said that was cutting the waste while preserving jobs. If fossil fuel subsidies aren’t cut, it means renewables will always have a subsidy disadvantage because fossils have been subsidized since the early 1900s while renewables have only gotten subsidies in the last 2 decades. That and the fact that renewables get less subsidies than fossil fuels every year. To truly preserve the free market, you would have to phase out fossil subsidies much faster than renewable subsidies to compensate for the difference in total cumulative aid.