Comments about ‘Letter: What mandate? Do what is right for the whole country’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 12 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Far East USA, SC

You are completely right Scott.

Unfortunately, we have become so partisan in this country that people have become blinded. They can no longer see a distinction between what is right for the country and the party ideology.

The facts are that

- federal spending is at all time highs
- federal taxes are at 60+ year lows.

Yet partisan ideology has convinced much of the country that only one side of the equation needs to be adjusted.

We need adults in the room to work out a solution encompassing both.

And we need the electorate, THAT IS YOU, to allow them the latitude to put country over party.

Burke, VA

The author makes an excellent point in saying that politicians (and I would add citizens as well) need to put aside partisan differences and work together to solve our massive debt and deficit problems. I would like to make a comment on the almost 120 million people who chose not to vote in the last election. Rather than use them as evidence of how many people didn't vote for either President Obama or Mitt Romney, I would prefer to negate their non-participation and just simply call it irresponsible. If you don't participate in the process you don't have the right to complain about the outcome. So rather than identify huge numbers who didn't vote for either candidate let's just say it was a close race and those who actually care about this country are closely divided on the outcome. Many people have sacrificed much, even their own lives, to give us the right to vote. Shame on those who squander this beautiful right that many in the world wish they had.

Boise, ID

ECR: Where does it say in the Constitution that citizens loose their free speech rights if they don't vote? In this country people have the right to NOT vote if they so choose. My personal choice is to always take part in elections and vote, but if people choose not to vote, that is their right and I respect it.

Orem, UT

JoeBlow "- federal taxes are at 60+ year lows."

Tax and spend liberals would love for everyone to believe that tax revenues are extremely low because of all the "Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy" and are a driving force behind Obama's string of trillion dollar deficits.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at any chart that shows inflation adjusted federal tax receipts and you will see that the government is taking as much or more of our money as it ever has. It is spending that has doubled in the last dozen years.

During the Democrat's "golden age of good government" (The Clinton years), tax receipts ranged from a low of $1.5T to a high of $2.1T (inflation adjusted to 2005 dollars). During the "evil days of the Bush empire", tax receipts exceeded the highest Clinton year 5 different times with the highest receipts ever in 2007 at over $2.4T.

Even last year with the "great recession" and the Bush Tax cuts in full force, tax receipts were still higher than 5 of the 8 Clinton years. How can anyone say that our problem is too few taxes with a straight face?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I look at it like this --

53% just voted to re-elected Pres. Obama,
Congress has a 13% approval rating.
67% will blame Republicans for falling off the Fiscal Cliff.

Yes, there is a Mandate,
Republicans don't seem willing to admit they don't have it and
seem more willing to destroy America with their All-or-Nothing hostage postition
rather sit down and compromise.


I look forward to the Democratic House of Representatives in 2014.

one old man
Ogden, UT

LDS Lib, and the fact is that if the GOP had not successfully been able to gerrymander the House districts in several states, we would have a Democratic House right now.

I hope it can happen in 2014, but given the political games that are played and the outright corruption of some parts of our law-making bodies, I'm not very encouraged.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Scott, how do you expect one political party to work with the President when they value their pledge to Nordquist more than their pledge to us, the American People?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Those who do not understand the purpose of the Constitution and those who reject the Constitution keep demanding that one segment of the population be taxed at a higher rate than they pay themselves. They demand that some "rich guy" pay for duties that are not authorized by the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the power to tax us.

Article 1, Section 8 limits the duties for which we can be taxed.

Article 2 limits the power of the President.

Amendments 4 and 5 limits the government in taking our property.

Amendment 14 assures us equal protection under the law.

Taxes are allowed. Congress is limited in those duties for which we may be taxed. We are all equally responsible, under the Supreme Law of the Land, to pay for those duties. The President cannot legislate and he must enforce the laws passed by Congress.

If we accept that taxes must be raised to pay for duties, then we agree to be taxed ourselves to pay for those duties. There is no Constitutional provision to tax one person at a rate higher than another.

If it's good for the Country, then we all pay.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

unfortunately we elect politicians, not leaders, and definitely NOT statesmen, the current resident of the WH being the foremost example.

Joe blow,
I'm confused by your apparent inability to distinguish tax RATES from overall taxes. high rates cause companies like Google to offshore billions in revenues to avoid our taxes. Make the corporate tax rates more reasonable by lowering them, and tax revenues will increase because less profit will be expatriated. It's better to get 10% $12 billion than 35% of $2 billion. the way dems talk about tax rates tells me they don't understand that simple math.

LDS lib,
you comment tells me that Josef Goebels would be envious of the dem spin machine. A dem house in 2014? THAT is why BO is bound and determined to push us over the fiscal cliff, he sees that as the most sure way to a dem house in 2014.

Far East USA, SC


Your "constitution" rants would carry much more weight if you also applied the same vigorous objections when the GOP tramples the document.

Centerville, UT

New math

60 million divided by 315 million equals 53 percent.

No it is 19%, effectively republicans got 18%. Approval rate for Congress, 13%. Who are the 13% who approve? No lib I don't think you have any evidence it is the republicans.

What the country needs is a fresh out look with a third party that can motivate the 63% that did not vote.

Steve C. Warren

Scott, an update on the final popular vote: It wasn't 60 million to 57 million. It was 65.5 million for Obama to 60.8 million for Romney, nearly 5 million difference. Romney received 47.3 percent of the vote, making him the 47-percent candidate who he referred to during the campaign.

Also, concerning federal taxes paid, Romney's federal liability in 2011 was only 9 percent, but, at a time he was taking lots of heat over his taxes, he voluntarily declined to take certain deductions so that he ended up paying 14 percent. Even the 14 percent was a lot lower than many middle income Americans pay, which is why Obama is right to call for the wealthy to begin paying their fair share.

J Thompson

@ Joeblow,

You seem to have not read Mike Richards' posts. He "calls out" anyone in any party at any time on any subject if that person has violated his oath of office. That's what I admire about people like Mike Richards; he is not blinded by party or by person. If something is wrong, he lets us know.

I believe that he stands for principles. I agree with him. There is no "mandate" for Obama to exceed his authority. There is no "mandate" for Obama to call for the taxation of some people and not for others. There is no "mandate" to give Obama unlimited credit card privileges. There is no "mandate" of any kind.

We are equally responsible for the bills incurred by Congress. If we want them to do something, we ALL have to pay for it. The most insidious thing that we can ever do is to expect someone else to pay for the government programs that we receive.

If everyone were taxed at the same rate, there would be a cry and howl for Congress to STOP SPENDING, but if only the "rich guy" is taxed, then those without principles urge Obama on.

spring street

far to reasonable Scoot, thank you.

Centerville, UT

My bad we do have a breakdown by party of the 13% approval. 16% of Democrats, 12% of independents, and 10% of Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing.

Far East USA, SC

"cause companies like Google to offshore billions in revenues to avoid our taxes."

So, Bermuda has a ZERO corporate tax rate. Do you think that if the US cut its corporate tax rate in half, that Google would pay it?

Use logic now.

Google Inc. (GOOG) avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company.....

By legally funneling profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, Google cut its overall tax rate almost in half. The amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 percent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011.

Burke, VA

Custer - point well taken. I don't want to take anyone's right of free speech (although I will continue to argue that complaints about the outcome of an election are invalid coming from those who chose not to participate) but I just don't think we should count the non-vote of certain citizens as an indictment against the platform of either party. In my opinion, only the opinion of those who participate in the process should be considered when judging what an election should tell us.

One might argue that a non-vote makes a statement as well but I feel it is similar to people who complain about a specific issue without presenting a reasoinable alternative. Voters can write in canidates or if those 120 million non-voters banded together they could form a viable third party that might have better answers to our problems. Just doing nothing is not the answer.

On the other hand, as I said earlier, I totally agree with the premise of this letter and what needs to happen to move our country forward.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

10:14 a.m. Dec. 12, 2012
@ Joeblow,

You seem to have not read Mike Richards' posts. He "calls out" anyone in any party at any time on any subject if that person has violated his oath of office. That's what I admire about people like Mike Richards; he is not blinded by party or by person.



THAT has got to be the funny line of the month, possibly the year!

BlueRibbon winner of comedy in my book!

We are talking about the saem guy who can not stnad, yet voted for Senator Orrin Hatch with the letter (R) each and everytime for the last 32 years, right?

And twice for GW Bush - also the letter (R) - who trampled the Constitution for 8 years solid?!

TARP, the Patriot Act, and 2 aggressive Offensive military operations belong to them, I might add.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

J Thompson,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your proposal.
You suggest that everyone in the country should pay the same tax rate. For everything? I assume you mean the federal income tax. So are you proposing eliminating payroll taxes? Are you proposing paying for Social Security and Medicare out of general revenues, instead of with a dedicated fund for just those purposes? Or do you propose adding money earned from investments to payroll taxes. Or do you propose that millionaires add payroll taxes on all their income to the income taxes they currently pay? Or are you suggesting that hard working people in low income jobs, people who can barely make ends meet, suddenly take a tax hit of an additional high percentage of their income. Or are you suggesting that, instead of income, we tax people only on disposable income?

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" and what has Obama done differently than Bush? Obama has taken nearly every Bush era policy and made them bigger and more expensive.

I have asked you this same question many times before, and you cannot come up with anything.

Obama had is own TARP program, he extended the Patriot Act and added even more constitutionally questionable aspects, he began 2 aggressive military operations and secretly shipped arms to people that were getting help from Al Qaeda.

Again, where is the difference? Why support Obama when he represented a bigger and more expensive version of Bush?

to comment

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