I think he voted against "Cut, Cap, and Balance" for a decent reason. But with the alternatives available to him - all of which are apocalyptically worse - this seems unwise.GRIFFITH STATEMENT ON CUT, CAP, & BALANCE
Washington – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement this evening after voting against H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011:
“I support the general goal of cut, cap, and balance, and I appreciate House leadership bringing this concept to the floor for a vote. However, to keep my commitments made to my constituents, I cannot support raising the debt ceiling without significant cuts and a substantial change to the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The Balanced Budget Amendment, if passed by the House and Senate and then by the States, would substantially change the way Washington spends money, but I have repeatedly stated that year one cuts must be more than $100-200 billion. While I realize House leadership has to work with a President who is late coming to the discussion, and who is not reasonable about the seriousness of the debt and deficit problem in this country, I could not turn my back on commitments made to my constituents. This plan would reduce spending by $111 billion next year. With the budget deficit this year predicted to reach nearly $1.5 trillion and a debt that has ballooned from $10.6 trillion just two years ago to $14.3 trillion now, we must cut more.
“To put these numbers into perspective, divide everything by $100 million. Suppose that a family has a total of $14,300 in credit card debt, and each year they add $1,500 in new debt to the card. Cutting $111 from this year’s new debt does not seem like enough to make a substantial difference.” [link]
Memo to dude writing statements for Congressman Griffith: Statements must clarify. Not befuddle.
This is totally confusing.