Comments about ‘Letter: Resolutions to mend budget’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 24 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ECR
Burke, VA

What the author has rightfully pointed out is that neither side of the aisle seems serious about responsibly balancing our budget. To me it boils down to the problem of campaign finance. Congressmen are elected every two years and it seems they must start fund raising the day after the election if they are intending to be re-elected. Senators have a longer term but often their campaigns are more expensive and so they are in a similar boat. So while many of them genuinely want to serve the people that elected them they are usually more beholden to those that finance their campaigns and that is where the conflict starts.

There are those who point out that freedom of speech would require us to not mess with this system but it seems obvious that the ones with the most money (their own or their donor's) are the ones that get elected and that money buys influence in Congress. I could suggest a solution to this problem but most who respond on this page would think I was a radical or might even call me a socialist. But until we fix that problem the other one will persist.

  • 5:41 a.m. July 24, 2012
  • Like (6)
  • Top comment
one old man
Ogden, UT

This is an excellent and thoughtful letter. There are real solutions out there. But until the powerful influences of corporations, Wall Street, banks, and other special interests are eliminated, no change is possible.

The first step must be eliminating Citizens United.

The second should be public financing of campaigns.

The third needs to be strict term limits for all legislators.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

So basically, neither party has a solution.

And, repubs have used the "balancing the budget" claim to obstruct Democrats' legislation more than Democrats have used it to obstruct Republican legislation.

That's essentially what the letter writer proved. Since neither is really serious about balancing the budget, they're merely using ridiculous proposals to merely obstruct legislation.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

It is wrong-headed to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes or the debt ceiling.

Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling increased the government’s borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011, and costs will continue to rise in the future, a report from the GAO found. The U.S. Treasury was forced to take varying actions to avoid hitting the debt limit before Congress raised it in August, forcing borrowing costs higher on multiple Treasury securities, the report found. And because many of those securities “will remain outstanding for years to come,” the borrowing costs will continue to rise in the near future. The debt limit fight also caused the first-ever downgrade of America’s credit rating, which Standard & Poor’s blamed on Congress' inability to work together and brinksmanship by the Republicans.

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@Truthseeker:

"It is wrong-headed to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes or the debt ceiling."

It's wrong headed to raise taxes or the debt ceiling. The federal government is now borrowing 42 cents on each dollar that it spends. And it is making no effort to change things... either party. That's obscene conduct.

"And because many of those securities “will remain outstanding for years to come,” the borrowing costs will continue to rise in the near future."

the cost of borrowing has nothing to do with how long the debt remains outstanding. Borrowing costs rise when interest rates rise... but only on new debt.

"The debt limit fight also caused the first-ever downgrade of America’s credit rating, which Standard & Poor’s blamed on Congress' inability to work together and brinksmanship by the Republicans."

The US bond credit rating was caused by our on-going sluggish economy... something that will be with us for a very long time. Has nothing to do with the 'fights' that go on in Congress.

Why is our economy sluggish? Because our jobs have moved overseas. We need a president who will get them back.

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@wrz:

"Why is our economy sluggish? Because our jobs have moved overseas."

Truer words were never spoken (typed). Jobs moving overseas has been on-going for decades. But we didn't much care ... we had a booming economy driven mostly by real-estate industry as well as the tech industry. Real-estate dried up with the 2008 bust and foreigners are now beating us in the tech business. Manufacturing moved long ago... Textiles/clothing, furniture, building materials, appliances, watches, toys, bicycles. You name it.

If you want proof go to a big box like Wal-Mart, look at any merchandise tag and see where it's made... China, India, Indonesia, etc.

We've lost the service industry as well. Call for 'help' with your cell phone, ipad, etc., and who will you get...? A foreigner. Even our beloved Deseret News is not guiltless. Call the paper's delivery help line and you get...? Watch for it... A foreigner!*

Well, least we still have hamburger flipping and insurance salesman's jobs.

*PS: We can help here... When the foreigner answers, tell them you want to speak to someone in the US. They are required to transfer you.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

That's funny. wrz wrote to himself.

Having multiple accounts and responding to yourself in order to make your opinions look more authentic or popular is a poor way of proving whatever point you were trying to make.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Seriously, wrz, who else are you? Redshirt? Invisible Man? Mountainman? Mike Richards?

Hilarious that you were caught responding to yourself.

Next time, try logging out of your wrz account and logging back in as your "other" persona.

Folks, it's obvious that the GOP is more concerned with obstructing the Democrats and making Obama a single term President than actually being serious about the deficit. Had they been serious, they would have quickly accepted that 10 to 1 ratio a long time ago.

You folks made pledges to the American people and this Constitution. Their pledges to Lindquist is unconstitutional and should result in an automatic dismissal from Congress.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

@wrz
Read S&P's and GAO report yourself.

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending....The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,and less predictable.."
(S&P 8/2011)

GAO report:
"The debt limit...restricts the Treasury’s authority to borrow to finance the decisions ALREADY ENACTED by Congress.
We reported in 2/2011 that managing debt when delays in raising the debt limit occur diverts Treasury’s resources away from other cash and debt management responsibilities and that Treasury’s borrowing costs modestly increased during debt limit debates in 2002, 2003, and 2010.
Delays in raising the debt limit in 2011 led to an increase in Treasury’s borrowing costs of about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011. However, this does not account for the multiyear effects on increased costs for Treasury securities that will remain outstanding after fiscal year 2011."
(GAO 7/2012)

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@The Real Maverick:

"That's funny. wrz wrote to himself."

The imposed 200 word limit is generally not enough to cover multiple points. Hence the transition to another post. Clever, I thought.

"Seriously, wrz, who else are you? Redshirt? Invisible Man? Mountainman? Mike Richards?"

All of the above and more... Including Real Maverick. Although, as Real Maverick I'll admit I've posted some very stupid comments. :)

"Folks, it's obvious that the GOP is more concerned with obstructing the Democrats and making Obama a single term President..."

A very noble objective. We've had enough of this guy who many think is a foreigner. For sure, his policies are foreign to our traditional system of governance.

"... than actually being serious about the deficit."

Getting rid of Obama is the first step in addressing the national deficit and debt.

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@Truthseeker:

"Read S&P's and GAO report yourself."

Per your post, S&P says it reduced bond rating due to controversy, fiscal policy debate, political brinksmanship, and policy making becoming less stable... This is nice but says nothing. The underlying reason is our on-going sluggish economy, as I posted.

The GAO report you quote does not explain why borrowing costs to the Treasury rise, so I'm sticking by my prior comment... i.e., the cost to the government of borrowing is directly related to available interest rates. Once a government bond is issued the interest rate (cost) on that bond remains static... does not raise or lower. Simple accounting concepts.

Congress is not supposed to enact budgets or other money bills unless there are funds in the Treasury to pay for it. That's why there's such a tizzy in Congress when the Treasury is dry and the government needs more money to pay bills. The issue comes to a head when each party accuses the other of being responsible for shutting down the government because the dept limit has not been increased.

I ought-a know... I used to work for GAO.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I found 19 resolutions that the present Congress proposed for "balanced budget amendments." Fourteen of these House and Senate resolutions were presented by Republicans, ~ letter

==========

and the Flag Desecration amendment,
the Christian amendment,
the Human Life amendment,
the School Prayer amendment,
the Pledge of Allegiance amendment,
Equal Opportunity to Govern [the Arnold Swartznager for President] amendment,
repeal the 17th amendment amendment,
Federal Marriage amendment,
repeal the 22nd amendment amendment,

I could go on and on....

The point is this;
For those who SAY they are the ones protecting the Constitution,
The Republicans are constantanly trying to CHANGE the Constitution.
Hypocrites!

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@LDS Liberal

I am completely for a 22nd Amendment Repeal, that we can get Bill Clinton back into office!

If "it's the economy stupid" who is better? When have we as a nation been more prosperous?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments