Letter: President Obama has a spending problem


Return To Article
  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    Bountiful, UT
    The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. That will equate to an additional $10 to $12 billion dollars per year in salary and benefits.


    AND (please add) that they are in the homeland security and department of defense. Veerans_Affairs also MUST add employees since we are gaining thousand of veterans every year. Republicans will NOT cut the budgets of of defense - no matter what.

    Are you beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors about budget cuts? It will be for things that actually benefits most Americans. Why don't we just admit that having wars, tax cuts, medicare prescriptions and a growing number of veterans mean that we need to pay more taxes. We cannot have the lowest tax rate that we have had in 30 years and continue like this. We are foolish if we do not see that it will take but cutting spending AND tax increases.

    I am willing to pay more. How about the rest of you?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    The spending started on the unfunded war in Iraq. The proposed war in Iran would cost ten trillion. The Bush tax cuts should have been reversed the minute the useless war in Iraq started. The insanity is the failure to recognize the reality of the cost of military adventures with no rationale basis.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    April 22, 2012 10:17 p.m.

    Something to keep in mind regarding the "mess that Obama inherited"--in January of 2007 the democrats took control of both houses of congress. If that does not give you a clue, it should.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 22, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Obama can criticize Romney for spending his own money, but doesn't mind spending ours.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 21, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    VST..the increase in government employees..primarily in uniformed military, and temporary census takers in 2010. A little honesty and reality would go a long ways.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    April 20, 2012 8:47 p.m.

    "Blaming Bush will not get your man re-elected."

    Of course it won't. But who wants a return to the failed policies that got us in this mess?

    Mitt Romney's ranting about how crappy the situation is right now will only get him so far. While his claims about returning to Bush policies might sound good to the Koch Bros, Wall Street, and the rest of his superpac, they certainly won't win him any votes from the critical independent voters that he so desperately needs.

    While you complain about our current situation (which is a lot better than what he was left with. Millions of Americans are better off today than they were a few years ago. So in that case, Obama has succeeded. He saved America the brink of financial ruin) Romney's solutions are far worse.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2012 5:53 p.m.

    Frank, just wbat was the state of the economy when president obama was sworn in? Perfect, as it always is when a republican leaves office? And how did we get a tax break while funding a war that cost up to six thousand dollars a second?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    April 20, 2012 4:39 p.m.

    @ VST

    "Total National Debt as a Percentage of GDP:

    Last Year of Bush (2008): 74.1%

    Last Year for Obama (2011): 99.7%

    Anyone see a huge difference here? Yeah, I do."

    Nice try. But your fun lil stat doesn't show an increase in government spending but a decrease in economic prosperity and financial ruin. This was a direct result of a decade of failed Bush economic policy.

    So thanks for sinking your own argument!

    Thanks for proving why we cannot vote in Mitt! Why would we want to return to the failed economic policies that brought us financial and economic ruin?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 20, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Please. President Obama is Hercules, cleaning the Stygian stables. The mess left him by the worst President of the last hundred years was simply too big to deal with in four years. He's done well with it. Four more years should see the job done.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 20, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Google "Policy Difference Under Two Presidents" and see what you find.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    The only problem with Frank and others' comments is that the majority of economists and "responsible" advisors recommended that cutting back government spending would probably hasten and worsen the recession. Remember, most of all credit for lending was gone.

  • David King Layton, UT
    April 20, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    "We absolutely have a spending problem. And I have yet to see a plan by anyone that can balance the budget by only cutting spending."

    Several plans exist. We could argue about their ability to attract bipartisan support, but they certainly are out there. One is Presidential candidate Ron Paul's. No tax increases, balances the budget in three years, decades shorter than the Ryan plan, the President's plan, or even the Bowles Simpson commission. How does it do it? Cuts five federal agencies. Drastically scales back U.S. involvement overseas not only in Iraq or Afghanistan but also bases in Germany or Korea. Releases about 100,000 Federal employees by attrition. It could be done if we had the stomach.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 20, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    Spending and revenue.

    What does Romney plan to do?

    Still waiting for Romney's SPECIFICS with regard to goals, objectives and TIMELINES with regard to the economy, housing, employment, energy, gas prices, N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, immigration, for starters.

    Conservative Icons Mark Levin and Charles Krauthhammer, among many, are also waiting.

    Conservatives constantly whine that President Obama was not properly vetted prior to his election.

    Voters should expect the same standard applied to Romney.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    Federal budget for FY 2009 (Bush's last budget) 3.5 trillion. Federal budget for FY 2012 (Obama's current budget) 3.6 trillion. See the huge difference? Yeah, me neither.

  • Oh Canada Salt Lake City, Ut
    April 20, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    What right do you and the government have to take the money of hard working citizens and give it to his bundlers like solydra and then put his faves in front of the American people if any money comes out of the disaster? Can you run your cars on algie? Boy I can't and probably never in my life time will be able to.
    Have you heard what the admin has done to the guitar company? Now I understand they are going after one of the most successful companies in the country - Apple. His lust for money knows no bounds. If tax money was going to pay down the debt, I don't think anyone would object, but no, it's more for his buddies. Buffett? He owes millions/billions in taxes and is fighting it in court. Now we find out that if the pipeline doesn't go through Buffett's interest in the railroad is going to get billions by transporting the crude.

  • patriot vet Cedar City, UT
    April 20, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    We have 2 choices:
    1.More of the same.
    2.A promise of return to pre-2008 wealth and prosperity.

    I vote for 1.More of the same. More of the same reductions in unemployment. More of the same efforts to insure the wealthy pay their share. More of the same efforts to improve health care for all. More of the same military reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I couldn't vote for pre-2008 prosperity, because we were on the verge of going over the cliff, as we did.

  • Nonconlib Happy Valley, UT
    April 20, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    There are several reasons why government spending is out of control. Two of the most significant are: (1) we have an aging population that lives longer, racking up huge health-care bills, and (2) the corporate economy we have allowed to evolve funnels money away from the lower and the middle classes and into the hands of the already wealthy, which creates more demand for government intervention to rescue those who fall between the cracks.

    The Republican solution to these two problems is to give further tax breaks to the wealthy, cut services for the poor, and oppose any sort of health-care reform that isn't market-based. But a market-driven health-care system serves only those who can afford it, which is a dwindling percentage of Americans. Give Mitt four years, and we'll have 100 million Americans without health insurance, unless he pushes Romneycare into law for the entire country. Oh, wait. He doesn't need to. We already have it. It's called Obamacare.

    Also, I can't help but wonder why the DesNews prints letters like this that do nothing educate, inform, or promote reasonable discussion of the issues.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    There is a revenue problem (tax cuts, recession caused reduced revenue) and a spending problem (bloated defense budget/warmaking) those things alone are responsible for about 60% of the deficit the past 10 years. 11% more is interest on the debt. 6% is the stimulus. The other spending you think of... is only responsible for about a quarter, 24% of it.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    JoeCapitalist2: "But not only has he done nothing to solve them, but he has accelerated them along with lots of additional problems."

    Neither of those assertions are supported by the facts:

    Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    National Export Initiative
    Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
    America Invents Act

    Those are just a few.

    And the results are showing. When Obama took office US manufacturing jobs were in free-fall, job losses in manufacturing industries were six figures per month. Today, the trend is back in positive territory, manufacturing jobs are now consistently _added_ to the economy each month.

    When Obama took office the Dow Jones Industrial Average was hovering near 8,000.

    This morning, it was above 13,000.

    This recovery is still fragile, and 8% unemployment is still a big problem. But it's not nearly as bad as the mess we were in at the end of the Bush administration. There remains much work to be done.

    I've got plenty of bones to pick with Obama, but he's infinitely better suited for what the country needs now than Mitt will ever be.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 20, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    The economy is Obama's achilles' heel. The ecomomy also happens to be Romney's strong point. The liberals can put their heads in the sand if it makes them feel better but it is what is going to take Obama down. That, and the scandals his administration are plagued with.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    April 20, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    The Federal budget in 1936 was $6 billions apparently. In 2010 it was 3.6 trillions, SIX HUNDRED TIMES the 1936 amount. The Republican & Democrat administrations in between these two dates, 74 years apart, can certainly share the blame.

    Population increase? U.S. population in 1936 was about 128 millions; it's two to three times that now certainly. Inflation? Whose fault is that? Spending? The size and scope of government is ever increasing. Social Security? Let's talk about that.

    The program, as far as monthly retirement payments are concerned, is self-funding. The surplus of 2.4 trillions came from payroll taxes from people now retired or about to be. It's held in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds,such as the federal government historically never repudiated. How would you like it if your T. bonds were not honored?

    Solution: return to each state upon demand the proportionate bonds for that state. Perhaps Utah (population about 1/150 of the nation's total) might receive then $160 billions, with SS transferred by the Utah State government. Then phase out the system for new employees.

    Oh yes, and stop undeclared foreign wars. That should do it.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    April 20, 2012 8:48 a.m.


    Yes, Obama inherited some really big problems. But not only has he done nothing to solve them, but he has accelerated them along with lots of additional problems.

    Spending under Obama is completely out of control. No amount of taxes can solve that. Until the government starts treating my tax dollars like a sacred trust instead of an open bar tab, I will fight any proposed tax increases.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 20, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    It is a true fact that president Obama has done an atrocious
    job of representing the American people. The American people wanted health care reform and were given a warmed over republican plan that did not meet the main objective.

    Further misrepresentation came from the stimulus attempts when Obama succumbed to the republican lie that giving money to business would create jobs.

    Even so, if his actions slowed down the republican efforts to destroy America and emasculate it’s government, we can be thankful for that.

    The threat posed to our world today by the 2012 elections is that we may be thrown to the dogs by the republican Tea Party group. Obama might be the lesser of two evils.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 20, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    Absured letter. Obama has cut federal hiring, frozen pay, proposed agency consolidations and taken other measures to reduce spending. Frank may not like government or the person elected to lead it, but he should admit that none of this originated in just the past three years. Even the auto bailouts and TARP were Republican initiatives. And those who say there is no revenue problem live in a fantasy world. I hope Frank doesn't manage his own finances like Congeessional Republicans. If he did, he would cut hs income every time a bill comes in to be paid. The GOP seems to be deliberately putting the U.S. in bankruptcy.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 20, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    Policy by anecdote. The problem with this country is...either this or that..

    Here's what it really looks like Frank "Our spending is at an all time high. Along with that, our taxes are at a 50+ year low." Joe Blow.

    In addition the middle class has dramaticly lost their positon in society over the last thirty years, and the economy is dominated by wealth production that adds nothing to value. Both of which fall into a big category of fairness and genrate government spending just to have a functioning society. America after WWII was structured so that money flowed through the economy through jobs and work. Now because of the losses of the middle class and the changes in the economy much of the money needed for the economy to continue to function flows through government spending simply because the middle class doesn't make enough, and the economy doesn't produce enough value.

    None of this will be solved by anecdotes, only serious dedication to the rejuvination of America, not the dominance of an ideology.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2012 7:09 a.m.

    The country was suckered into 8 years of Bush insanity, including but not limited to two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D, unfunded subsidies to big oil and big pharma, and unjustified tax cuts (not just for the wealthy, but the wealthy benefited disproportionately). I don't recall Mr. Overfelt complaining about Bush's profligate spending. Besides, his vitriol ought to be directed toward Congress, which supposedly authorizes all government spending.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 20, 2012 7:00 a.m.

    We absolutely have a spending problem. And I have yet to see a plan by anyone that can balance the budget by only cutting spending.

    If you have, Frank, please point me to it. Cause it sure isn't Paul Ryans Plan, which raises the deficit in the name of tax cuts.

    Our spending is at an all time high. Along with that, our taxes are at a 50+ year low.

    A reasonable approach would be for our legislators to negotiate. You know, to give and get.

    How about we significantly cut spending while raising taxes to Clinton Levels? How can ANYONE not see the wisdom in that?

    I am all for tax cuts, but not at the expense of deficits.

    If both sides draw a hard line in the sand, nothing will get done.

    This can be worked out, and we can get a handle on it. But there will be pain involved on all sides.

    Simpson bowles is a great start, but was panned by both sides. Why? Cause they both had to give something.

    Wake up people. Urge your congressmen to compromise and get something positive done.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2012 6:59 a.m.


    Two unfunded wars.

    Tax cuts.

    The largest meltdown of the economy since the Great Depression.

    Obama created none of those - they were waiting for him when he was inaugurated.