In our opinion: Fiscal and moral responsibility


Return To Article
  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    Partisans continue to squabble. It's clear that both parties are totally unwilling to do anything more than window dressing.

    This suits the status quo as meanwhile nothing ever gets done to change the glaring faults of both parties. When we have anyone who will do something substantial and get the job done he is called a crackpot or a fanatic.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    'Sound bite Pagan, you consider Arnold to be a Republican? No Republican does.' - Flashback | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 27, 2011

    That sounds like buyers remorse then.

    Because Schwarzenegger factually DID run as a Republican when he was elected to Gov. of California on October 7, 2003 & again on: November 7, 2006.

    He was sworn in on for his second term on: January 5, 2007.

    As a Republican.

    Regardless of what you WANTED him to be, now.

    Your post reminds me of Republicans after George W. Bush's 2nd term. I think it was reported less than 20% of American identified as Republicans at the time.

    So please, don't claim this 'they aren't 'real' Republicans.


    *'Study: Rich get a lot richer, outpace middle class' - By Andrew Taylor - AP - 10/26/11

    'It finds that after-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost tripled, up 275 percent, from 1979 to 2007.'

    It's hard to claim progressives have 'class warefare'...

    when the WEALTHY have had skyrocketing wealth growth.


    *Half of all Americans are struggling to get by on poor or on low income, figures reveal By Rebecca Seales Daily UK news 12/15/11

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    Mr. Gingrich is a fabulist, nothing more.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    Sound bite Pagan, you consider Arnold to be a Republican? No Republican does.
    Bottom line, a little Moral behavior in the financial markets, in government spending, and personal lives would go a long way toward solving some problems. One constant that is painfully clear, all the progressives and their continual class warfare rhetoric.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    *'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

    *'Bush signs $17.4 billion auto industry bailout package' - By Nelson Ireson - Motor Authority - 12/19/08

    *Cost of US wars since 9/11? At least $3.7 trillion, study finds Reuters 06/29/11

    Financial responsibility? What a JOKE!


    *'GOP contenders argue on Iran' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/12/11

    "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," vowed the former Massachusetts governor.'

    We should go into ANOTHER $3 trillion dollar war??

    About morality:

    *'Gingrich Says He Cheated on His Wife' - AP - Published by NY Times - 03/09/07

    *(Arnold) 'Schwarzenegger, Who Spoke Out Against Single Mothers and Vetoed Gay Marriage Bills, Fathered Child Out of Wedlock' - By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd - Alter Net - 05/17/11

    *'Sen. Vitter Apologizes for Number Showing Up on Phone Records of Alleged Prostitution Ring' - Fox News - 07/10/07

    Would have more credibility...

    if Republican Senator David Vitter was not STILL in office.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 10:42 p.m.

    Ahh, red state yes you did say the fica holiday was intended to increase revenues.." Twin Lights- no sane economist will tell you that lowering tax rates on income will increase revenue- certainly not lowering e.g the payroll tax like Obama has done- that's just irresponsible" It may be irresponsible for a number of reasons by it has nothing to do with revenue increases.

    Certinly companies don't always go offshore for taxes but that wasn't my point. My point was capital gains and some other forms of none salary incomes are all ready taxed at very low rates even compared to other nations and yet we still have massive off shoring.
    Sorry I don't agree at all that capital gains and dividends are taxed twice simply because the money changes hands. It goes from the coffers of the company to the bank account of the individual and thus should be taxed.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    L White:

    Here is how more money for the rich harms the nation. The top 1% have seen their incomes increase by 275% the last decade, while the median income has stagnated, at best. Our economy is driven by consumption, which has stagnated with so many unemployed.

    The wealthy have to become more and more creative to spend their wealth, and instead have invested increasingly overseas. Buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis has a minimal economic impact, compared to the spending that takes place by the middle class.

    Which is more important - the American economy, or protecting the wealth of the top 1%? More and more it's a mutually exclusive choice.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:08 p.m.

    tick tock J. feel free to provide support for any of these claims.

    1. Controlled rent has turned neighborhoods into slums

    2. Welfare has caused millions of fathers to abandon their families rather than taking responsibility

    3. Education has produced a generation of dropouts who camp in city parks and bemoan the fact that their are no jobs for people trained in the liberal arts.

    4. 50% of Americans who wait for a check from Washington every month to supply them with enough money to buy dog food

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 8:17 p.m.

    If you have ever been on the bad side of a bankruptcy you would be able to see financial obligations as a moral issue.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:36 p.m.

    Get ready. The last trading week of the year will be a test for stocks to prove whether they have the strength to carry a rally into next year. Major Market IndicesThe broad S&P 500 index broke through its 200-day moving average after turning positive for the year as a four-day rally lifted stocks following a spell of better-than-expected economic data. At Friday's close, the S&P 500 was up 0.6 percent for the year. But despite the recent economic data that suggest the U.S. economy is on the right track to recovery, Europe's sovereign debt crisis is troubling investors and weighing on the market. Many market participants are reluctant to believe in a "Santa Claus rally" this year, which refers to stocks seasonal tendency to gain in the final five trading days of the year and first two trading days of the new year. Warnings from major credit rating agencies on a potential downgrade of several European nations have kept investors on edge.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Dec. 26, 2011 6:50 p.m.

    TRUE-economic-expansion. "It is a moral responsibility and a fiscal responsibility to create jobs GOP." Harry Reid is having a hard time finding job creators, according to Forbes Magazine. It's part of a Koch Brothers pattern in which one of the nation's top Democrats continues to fail at locating American entrepreneurs and the jobs they help generate. Reid makes patently accurate claims on an important tax-policy issue without any heads being turned?. I guess this is what we expect of Congress. No wonder citizens are as rare as unicorns, to borrow a phrase. Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They're impossible to find, and they don't exist. Only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than 1 percent, are small business owners. And only a tiny fraction are traditional job creators. Most of these businesses are hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers. They don't do much hiring and they don't need tax breaks. There are 236,883 tax filers with incomes of a million dollars or more. By Harry Reid's count, only one percent, or 2,361 of them, are business owners, and a tiny fraction of them create jobs.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 6:14 p.m.

    L. White. By any account Obama has added 3 million jobs to the private sector..just a fact. Secondly I didn't say the extra 40,000 didn't make any difference..I said it wouldn't change their consumption. It may change their investments and savings but.. Thirdly your whole who does it belong to rant is pure nonesense..the constitution allows the federal government to levy taxes, but doesn't say anything about how. That decision is up to the citizenry and we have decided on a progressive tax. If you want to change it make your argument, but a progressivre tax is not stealing or immoral. Lastly, taking $390.000 from one and so another can sit around and smoke dope doesn't make any sense at all. The two concepts have nothing to do with one another as you have presented them.
    My last allowed comment on this topic so I'll wait for our next interaction.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 5:57 p.m.

    @pragmatist for life- I never said that cutting the fica tax was intended to increase revenue. I simply said it was irresponsible because that tax is intended to fund the mythical "social security trust fund".
    I think you're making correlations between tax rates that are erroneous. Corporations don't always move offshore or build factories elsewhere because of tax rates. I would suggest that the outsourcing we've seen in the last 15-20 years has more to do with overregulation than taxation. Look at the time it takes to break ground and build a factory in eg Vietnam, China, Singapore, Canada as opposed to the US. It's crazy. You also have the litigation costs of being sued every time you you turn around. You have fica costs and workmen's comp costs, and now the new costs imposed by Nancy Pelosi's wonderful new healthcare legislation.
    Last- taxes on capital gains and dividends should always be zero because you're taxing money that has already been taxed before as income- it's double taxation. Raise them if you'd like and see if we have net capital inflow or exodus.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 26, 2011 5:35 p.m.

    @jJ Thompson

    Nice try, Again you stand up straw man arguments. I made no such claims, you on the other hand did make claims, support them. stop trying to divert attention away from the fact you make unsupported claims. The longer you stall the more you make my point.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    If you really want moral responsibility, you won't find it in Newt.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 4:16 p.m.

    Have schools stopped teaching basic math?

    Pragmatistferlife tells us that taking another $40,000 from a millionaire does not matter after you have already taken $350,000 from him.

    Whose money is it? Does that money belong to the government? Did the government work for it? Did the government invest it? Did the government take any risks to earn it? Why does that money belong to the government just because the taxpayer is a millionaire?

    Isn't the taxpayer a citizen who is supposed to get equal protection under the law? Does equal protection mean that because you worked extra hard and because your neighbor sat around all day smoking dope and watching TV that the government can take $390,000 of your hard earned dollars so you neighbor can continue to smoke dope and watch TV?

    The government has no moral right to tax one individual at one tax rate and another individual at another tax rate.

    President Obama is not creating jobs. Should he give back his salary? He is telling us that the rich guy should pay (he made $5.5 million last year). Is he rich? How many jobs did he create?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 4:15 p.m.

    Ths Editorial Board is naive. There is too much passive acceptance of campaign rhetoric. The andidates have always used such slogans. The Board should challenge the integrity of candidates by asking how? How will they show fiscal responsibility? How will raise taxes? Or how will they cut spending. You will find they have no answers.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    Mike Richards, here's what's wrong with your argument. With you "if someone takes $5 from you what will you cut argument. You assume scarcity, which if you are making over a million dollars (the dems proposed tax level) a year just isn't applicable. Moving your income tax rate from 35 to 39 percent won't affect your consumption at all. It will affect your savings and or investing but so what. Here again for it to be detremental the investing would have to be creating jobs, which it isn't. It's simply rich folks trading riches and risks back and fort.

    Red State, the FICA holiday is not intended to increase revenues. It's simply a short term effort to keep demand up. Your investment comment should have the same answer as above. If investment went to an expansion in American jobs that would be one thing but it rarely does. Not enough words here to explain but, capital gains etc. are currently taxed much lower than other incomes and it's done nothing but send jobs overseas and excacerbate the income disparity in this country.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 3:13 p.m.


    I'll be happy too show you all the hard evidence that you'll ever need; but, since you brought up the issue, please go first.

    We would all like to see your facts.

    Show us the facts that shows how separating morality from fiscal responsibility builds character and integrity.

    Show the facts that show what happens when people without integrity abandon their responsibility to keep their word.

    Show us the facts that tell us what would happen if EVERYONE lived by that philosophy.

    Tell how many people are in prison for committing fraud and then tell us how that is different from defrauding a bank or a credit card company. Tell us how adding $5 TRILLION to the deficit and then printing more money to make our dollar virtually worthless worldwide is moral and right.

    Tell us how Mr. Romney was wrong when he said, "It is a moral responsibility to believe in fiscal responsibility."

    You must have the facts, because you brought up the question. A good lawyer never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 2:51 p.m.

    It's sad that no matter who we send to DC -Republicans or Democrats the Federal Government only grows. Thousands of unelected bureaucrats writing regulations to justify their existence and new agencies created constantly- TSA, Consumer Protection Agency, Healthcare's IPAB - the private sector is having the life choked out of it by this crazy alphabet soup.
    Add up all the state and local debt and unfunded federal entitlements plus the "official" 15 trillion in debt on the books. What we kind of life are we leaving our posterity? Don't you all think they might like to spend their tax dollars on things they want instead of things we wanted?
    I'll tell you what kind of life they'll have- a much smaller life with smaller houses, cars, higher energy costs, higher education costs and on and on. It'll be much closer to a third world existence than what we enjoy today living off their dime.
    It's completely immoral and I'm ashamed of the American people that let it get so out of hand.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Dec. 26, 2011 2:50 p.m.

    What is 'immoral' is viewing all poor and unfortunate people as 'lazy and slothful'. That has got to be one of the most unchristian things I hear around here.

    And what is foolish is believing that tax cuts will produce jobs. If you're still spouting that lie, you just have your eyes and ears shut tight against facts.

  • Kiyo Washougal, Washington
    Dec. 26, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    ...Ron Paul has bitten off more than he can chew. A more measured approach like half now and half a short time later would be easier to manage.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 26, 2011 2:18 p.m.

    @mike, john and J thomas
    instead of wasting all of our time with your straw man characters of what you think the "left" is all about how about you spend sometime providing support for what you want to do. All we ever see is a lot of baseless rhetoric out of you three. how about some supported facts for once.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 1:15 p.m.

    Mr. atl134,

    Let a "grandma" address your points.

    If Medicare is cheaper it is because the government dictates prices to the doctors. They are told to "take it or leave it". Many doctors have decided to "leave it". How does that help those who depend on those doctors and on Medicare?

    Most of us know that welfare payments go to families who have no provider to support that family. The more babies you have to feed, the bigger the welfare check. If the father can be found, he is expected to feed his family. If he cannot be found, President Obama sends a check to that family. No father means that you and I pay for that family's needs.

    All Americans benefit equally from all Constitutional duties that all Americans have asked the government to perform. Because all Americans are represented by the duties required by the Constitution it only seems fair that all Americans pay an equal rate for those duties. I did not say an equal amount. I said an equal rate. An equal amount would be even better, but I will settle for an equal rate.

    When people pay, they learn to pay attention.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    @J Thompson

    "How does the government provide goods and services cheaper than the private sector? "

    Medicare is more efficient (higher %age going to care) than private insurances. Private insurance is so bad with overhead that the healthcare bill had to mandate they spent at least a certain % on healthcare.

    "2. Welfare has caused millions of fathers to abandon their families rather than taking responsibility"

    That doesn't even make sense.

    "Paying back debt is best done when ALL Americans are taxed at the same rate so that ALL Americans realize that there is no "rich guy" who is going to save them from their demands for a free lunch"

    Flat taxes means massive tax hikes on the poor/middle class coupled with massive tax cuts for the rich. I'm not giving some rich person a free lunch tax cut just so I have to pay more taxes to pay for their tax cut. Taxes need to be raised across the board. Return to clinton/gingrich tax levels, then from there get rid of loopholes that are exploited and use that to lower rates an equivalent amount.

  • kibitzer Magna, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 12:34 p.m.

    I agree with the premise but not the inferred conclusion.
    Ron Paul has committed to do much more than Mitt to reduce the deficit and cut spending. It seems to me that Mr Romney will not go nearly far enough.

    Congress and the people who sometimes supported them have wasted the treasure of the United States. On what? On foreign wars. Mitt, sadly, seems united with Gingrich, Bachman, Perry and Santorum, in wanting to continue the financially and otherwise irresponsible bellicose foreign policy of the nation.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 12:06 p.m.

    How does the government provide goods and services cheaper than the private sector? Up to 80% of each dollar is wasted on all the levels that that dollar has to pass through before getting to its final destination.

    We have been fighting the "war on poverty" since 1935. Guess what? We're losing that war and it's not because the government has not spent trillions of taxpayer dollars.

    Look at what they have done:

    1. Controlled rent has turned neighborhoods into slums

    2. Welfare has caused millions of fathers to abandon their families rather than taking responsibility

    3. Education has produced a generation of dropouts who camp in city parks and bemoan the fact that their are no jobs for people trained in the liberal arts.

    4. 50% of Americans who wait for a check from Washington every month to supply them with enough money to buy dog food

    Paying back debt is best done when ALL Americans are taxed at the same rate so that ALL Americans realize that there is no "rich guy" who is going to save them from their demands for a free lunch and for a nanny to tuck them in at night.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 26, 2011 11:49 a.m.

    "When an individual chooses to live beyond his or her means, there is an eventual accounting for those choices."

    Well said. Certainly we, as a country and as individuals have a moral responsibility to repay the debts we have incurred and, in fact, to not incur that debt unless it is absolutely necessary. The last 30 years have increased our national debt more that 14 times what it was at the end of our first bicentennial (that's 200 years of history.) Something has gone wrong.

    And so it is important to add to the sentence quoted above to say that "when an individual chooses to live beyond his or her means" they need to do all they can to repay any debts they have incurred and to obtain the means necessary to do so. Incurring debt, while at the same time, choosing to live on less income makes no logical sense and it certainly makes no moral sense. Willfully incurring debt and then refusing the pay the bills one has incurred is not only childish and immature but it is morally wrong, and in most places, illegal.

    So let's promote candidates who want to responsibly look at our national economy and decide to pay our debts and reduce our consumption - consumption of every kind.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 11:29 a.m.


    The problem with your fairytales is that they assume the person just loses the $5 and gets nothing in return. In real life that sometimes/often happens, but mostly in private dealings, not the government. In fact every service provided by government is done so cheaper than if done by private enterprise.

    Assume that the person receives a $100 worth of service or product from the person who was given the $5. How does that change your story?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    In the grand competition for the ownership and control of the wealth of the world, one of the weapons used is the notion of debt having an inherently moral dimension. This moral dimension is always expressed in money, never in terms of the quality, quantity, and worthiness of the product or service for which the debt was incurred.

    I only wish it were possible that I could pay some of the debts and alleviated some of the pain of my mother and father as they struggled to survive. I wonder if my future heirs will be angry at me for my life or if, like the politicians tell us, our future children will be burdened by our debt.

    The smokescreen of debt is simply a ploy to distract us from the true motivations of the candidates. All politicians seek government office in order that they may provide advantage to their own interests. Once installed they will revert to their true cause and if debt can be used to satisfy their need, there will be more debt. And if they can divert the benefits of government in their direction, away from people, they will do so.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    How can we expect Romney to exercise "fiscal and Moral Responsibility" when his campaign deliberately miss quotes Obama and then puts out a explanatory statement that in a political campaign misleading "propaganda" is acceptable. I think that the editor assumes a moral position for Romney, probably because he is LDS, that is not well supported by his campaign tactics or his business history.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    A wise man once said that if something cannot go on indefinitely at some point it will stop. The runaway spending and borrowing by the Federal Govt (egged on by voters with their hand out) will stop sooner or later. The question is whether we stop it before we go off the cliff or if it stops when we crash at the bottom of the cliff.
    2 Twin Lights- no sane economist will tell you that lowering tax rates on income will increase revenue- certainly not lowering e.g the payroll tax like Obama has done- that's just irresponsible. By the same token, raising taxes will not necessarily increase revenues. Historically, the Federal Govt has only collected around 20% of GDP no matter what tax rates are on income. Not many people will work for 10 cents on the dollar.
    Lowering rates on taxes on investment (capital gains, corporate, dividends etc) CAN increase revenue by encouraging investment and growing the tax base. Why is that such a difficult concept for the left to grasp?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:50 a.m.

    Twin Lights,

    Let's make this very simple.

    If someone forced you to pay an additional $5 in taxes for every $100 dollars you earned, What would you cut? You would have to cut something. You would have less money to spend.

    Would you cut your savings budget (and hope that things got better before you retired)?

    Would you cut your grocery budget (and hope that you would be healthy eating junk food)?

    Would you cut your entertainment budget (and cause those who provide entertainment to loose their jobs)?

    Would you not buy a car (and cause the automobile companies to "reduce" workers)?

    What would you do? Less income to YOU means that you will have to cut spending. Cutting spending has consequences to those who depend on YOU.

    Government does not need more of YOUR money. They need to be fiscally responsible. They need to have integrity. They need to STOP SPENDING.

    This is not a slave state. "Whipping" someone who is your top producer will not make him produce more. But that is exactly the mentality behind raising taxes on the "rich".

    The rich will stop working when government takes away the incentive to work.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    What's disheartning here is a lack of honest discussion. To completely ignore the reality of our circustances is very foolish. An example..GWB's deficit in '08 was somewhere around 500billion. GWB's defict for '09 (according to the Cato institute) was 1.9 trillion. Obama reduced it to 1.2. What happened? Did Bush loose his mind, did he try and set up Obama..no, the recession happened. Reality is the deficit is being driven by the two wars, Bush tax cuts,recovery measures,TARP freddie and fannie rescue, and the economic downturn. Continuing the rhetoric that Obama wants to turn us into a socialist nation, he's paying off all his friends is beyond dishonest, inflmmatory, and useless.

    No amount of facts or reality checks will sway the purvaors of this hyporbole but hopefully the truly curious will listen to the reasonable arguments from both sides of the isle and further the discussion of what does fiscal responsibility really mean today.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    Someone please tell me how the government or any individual will ever get out of debt in a debt based monetary system.

    If there isn't any debt there isn't any money. Game over.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 26, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Since we are talking about honesty and integrity, one thing that needs to be dropped from our national discussion is the argument that lower tax rates will increase tax revenues via increased economic activity.

    If we start with a tax rate of 15%, every 1% drop in the tax rate would have to spur about a 9% increase in economic activity a 9 for 1 return just to keep revenues the same. It should be obvious that this sort of economic expansion is simply too good to be true.

    Conservative economists do not promulgate this idea and David Stockman (Reagan's Budget Director) says the math simply does not work.

    Does this give us license to tax the rich into oblivion? No. But the rich, middle class, and likely the poor as well cannot escape the fact that we need both increased revenues and lower budgets in order to get us out of this mess.

    If we believe otherwise we are drinking someone's political Kool-Aid. And that someone is not likely being honest with us.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 8:35 a.m.

    Let's be honest, neither mainstream Republicans or mainstream Democrats are serious about our financial condition. The Paul Ryan plan would not balance the budget for another 25 years. President Obama has seen an increase of $4 trillion to the national debt. President George W. Bush oversaw an increase of $5 trillion. President Clinton never had a balanced budget, and benefitted from the money taken from the Social Security trust fund. Mitt Romney's plan is to cut discretionary spending by 5% and then hope for an impossible-to-pass budget amendment. Congress doesn't need any more authority to do their jobs and balance the budget. An budget amendment is a scapegoat for politicians unwilling to cut anything.

    Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has proposed a balanced budget within his term. He will get my vote because he is the only one willing to cut from our two biggest addictions we have, welfare and warfare.

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    I take issue with the oft repeated phrase that our children will pay the price of fiscal irresponsibility. That is wildly optimistic. Look what happened to Greece, Ireland and Iceland when the bond market decided to impose fiscal discipline there. It can happen almost overnight. Everything is fine and we are happily enjoying our debt fueled prosperity until suddenly it's not fine, confidence collapses and markets refuse to lend. This is not a problem for future generations, the day of reckoning is closer than we think.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    For the left wing, there is only one driving responsibility: the responsibility to turn this Country into a welfare state.

    The left seeks to tax productive citizens into oblivion, so that the government may have more money to fund entitlement programs for the lazy and slothful. Clearly, this is not a sustainable fiscal program.

    As part of thos quest, the left knows that it must break down the general moral fabric of society. Thus, it downplays adultery, fornication, and anything else that destroys traditional marriage. The left knows that the happily married are unlikely to accept its agenda of socialism, so it does everything it can to destroy marriage.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:50 a.m.

    It seems that our liberal friends disagree with the PRINCIPLE of "honesty" and with the PRINCIPLE of "responsibility" and with the PRINCIPLE of "integrity".

    There is absolutely no moral excuse for the nearly $5 TRILLION that Mr. Obama has added to the deficit since he became President. Track the money and see where the bulk of it went. It lined the pockets of his supporters, whether those supporters owned a now-bankrupt solar energy company, whether those supporters were union members at Chrysler and G.M., or whether those supporters were common ordinary ACORN "employees".

    That is morally reprehensible.

    Lowering the tax rate will produce jobs that produce revenue from income tax; but, liberals tell us that we need to kill the golden goose by taking more money out of the private sector - money needed to produce those jobs. They know that $60 BILLION per year in new tax revenue from the "rich guy" will never pay off the $5 TRILLION added to the deficit, but they want to punish those who have a strong work ethic. They somehow think that all money belongs to the government and that private initiative should be taxed out of existence.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:29 a.m.

    Using the concept of "fiscal responsibility" to produce a thinly veiled endorsement of Mitt is unconscionable given the DNews' silence on the reckless financial practices of the Bush/Cheney administration. Where was the DNews when Bush was running up the deficit on ill advised wars and tax cuts, while Cheney was uttering the now famous phrase "Deficits don't matter." If morality is equated with sound financial management is Bill Clinton, the budget balancer, now considered ethical by the DNews?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:04 a.m.

    Wouldn't it be great if every individual and family had health care that wasn't dependent on their employer? That would give them a greater confidence to make a positive difference in the world.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 7:01 a.m.

    Re: "It is a moral responsibility to believe in fiscal responsibility."

    That anyone expects to gain politically from picking a fight with such a statement is completely beyond comprehension. If we could just get politicians to actually believe and act on it, rather than throwing it around as a political gimmick, we might begin healing our Nation.

    It is beyond dispute that we cannot expect long-term prosperity if we can't control demented mortgaging of our economic future. It's truly sad that economic health of nations is currently analyzed by a "debt-revenues ratio," and that no developed nation's ratio is currently positive, or even neutral.

    Cynical, liberal politicians, of all nationality and political stripe -- properly esteemed below used-car-salesmen -- have exalted national debt slavery to a political sacrament, cynically promising government will solve our ills.

    It won't. It can't. And it's WAY past time politicians admitted as much.

    At least admitting the truth that's staring us all in the face would be a good start towards reclaiming politicians' justifiably pitiful approval ratings.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 26, 2011 3:09 a.m.

    In 1984, Bentsen, who was Mondale's VP nominee made the point about Reagen's prosperity: "If you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks a year, I could create the illusion of prosperity."

    I think that a good motto for Romney may be "Honest prosperity". There is a contradiction in economics. Consumer credit by large parts of the population is considered good for the national economy but it is considered bad for individuals. People are buying cars, big screen TVs, big houses. It generates jobs. Politicians get re-elected. The day of reckoning gets passed down to the next administration. In a sense, Obama's bad economy is a leftover from Clinton's and Bush's re-election.

    Of course, Obama is trying to kick the reckoning down the road to someone else. But he is not any better or worse than his predecessors. Just not as lucky.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 1:41 a.m.

    "And although we don't endorse individual candidates, we do regularly endorse principles that we believe will give individuals and families greater confidence to make a positive difference in the world."

    And you just so happened to emphasize Romney throughout all this. I can't help but get a "wink wink nudge nudge" sense out of this. I would care more... but frankly an endorsement means nothing anyway. Utah has the last primary this time and everyone knows this state was going to go to Romney or Huntsman anyway as the 08 primary shows (when Romney gets almost 90% in Utah but 51% in the state he was governor of...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2011 1:32 a.m.

    And yet Romney wants to lower taxes, increase defense spending, and has shown no plan that makes any sort of serious spending cuts elsewhere to even cover the deficit increases the first two actions would cause let alone reduce the already large deficits.