Comments about ‘In our opinion: Sequester is clumsy way of doing what the country needs’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Camarillo, CA

Honestly I can't decide if Mr Obama in "campaign mode" sounds more like the "little boy who cried wolf", or "chicken little" running around yelling the sky is falling, For heavens sake we are talking about spending an aggregate 2% less than planned for the coming fiscal year - but which is still a slight increase over last year, and 14% more than the year before that. And hearing cabinet secretaries run around forecasting the "end of the world" in their departments seems to me to be the height of gross mismanagement. If any non-governmental manager at any level reported to their superiors that they could not run their organization on 98% of their projected budget, and still 14% more than they had 2 years prior, they would be out on the street so fast it would make their head spin. We really need new leadership starting at the top.

Beverly Hills, CA

Put on your big boy pants Republicans because you wanted reduced spending, enjoy your own medicine. Republicans have been howling at the moon over the National Debt and now complain that the cuts will hurt? Please, spare me.

ALl the unfunded mandates the past 3 Republican presidents ran up and now all of a sudden Republicans care about spending. The cuts are coming and the pain will be real.

Burke, VA

"...no shortage of voices can be heard warning of the dire impacts, while political blame is being cast literally left and right."

A seemingly fair assessment if it were not for the fact that the president's picture is the one featured prominently in this article and that his name or office is mentioned 6 or 7 times with hardly a peep about the Republican Congress. And did you really try to make S&P sound like a credible organization after their complicit behavior in the 2008 meltdown?

So let's state some facts - The president and the Congress agreed to the sequester as a draconian measure that would surely motivate the "Super Committee" to come to a reasonable deal with regard to spending and revenue. But alas, they did not. You can decide for yourself who it was that scuttled that deal.

Last week Republicans said the president should just butt out of legislative negotiations relating to gun control and any attempts on his part would be dead on arrival. But this week they, and their surrogates, want his leadership to solve this fiscal problem.

If you're going to claim to be objective, DN, please follow through on that claim.

Houston, TX

Let’s talk the truth here! We TeaPublicans know that these sequester cuts ARE the direct result of Republican demand in 2011 to shrink the government at any cost, under threat of a default on the nation’s debt! Yes, that’s how the sequester came about and we TeaPublicans ARE darn proud of how we forced all Republicans to make those demands! Now you can sugarcoat this however you want to, but the bottom line is we TeaPublicans got what we wanted in 2011….and now we ARE going to get the sequestration cuts that America needs and demands! And come the next elections Americans will say “Thank you very much”!

salt lake city, utah

TeaPublican..I doubt seriously anyone is going to be saying thank you..it's more likely they will be saying are you kidding, & what were you thinking. Reasons.. 85 billion won't in and of itself do anything to turn the trajectory of spending..however 85 billion from programs that cause lay offs, literly takes food out of old peoples mouths, and grounds war ships, will have a devastating public image. In addition this will all be contrasted to obstruction of the Presidents point of tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare for billionaires. Once again Republicans context matters..a lot.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I agreed completely with this editorial. After WW2 ended the Federal Budget was cut by 40% and the private sector went gangbusters. Yes, there were a number of reasons for that but the reduction of Federal spending to GDP was one of the primary reasons. At this point, we should be talking about eliminating entire departments. Would the world come to an end if we got rid of the Dept of Agriculture? Do we really need the TSA? Can't private airlines handle their own security?
It's actually pretty frightening that a piddling cut in a projected increase is so difficult. And the President has turned into fear-monger in chief. What a sad example of poor leadership. Maybe he could start traveling in 39 car motorcades instead of 40.

Ogden, UT

Bottom line is this was the Kings idea. Sequestration came out of the White House. The King was dodging until after the election. He is on record saying that he would veto any attempt to circumvent the bill. The House has sent two seperate bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has not done one thing including any bills out of the Senate. Now the King is crying about all the damage his own plan will do but as usual compromise is something that he knows nothing about. He is always my way or the Hiway. Rememmber Y2K. This is the same sell job. Oh but thats right the lefties all say the Country does not have a spending problem. Ya right!


Boehner has said Obama got his tax increases, no more tax increases. But Obama could reply, Boehner got spending cuts--nearly 1 trillion in the 2011 Budget Control Act, therefore, no more spending cuts. More revenue is needed and more spending cuts before employment has recovered is irresponsible. How is austerity working in the EU? It isn't. When Hill Air Force Base employees are laid off or have their pay cut--how is that going to help UT's economy?

In fact:
The federal deficit will drop to less than $1 trillion for the first time in five years, but massive spending cuts that have improved the budget outlook are also slowing the economy, according to a report released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget office.
(LA Times Feb 2013)

The fact remains, the Republicans trying to absolve themselves of blame for the sequestration is comical because many/most Republicans in Congress favor the sequestration!

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Bring it on. If the American dream of government by the people for the people is to be thrown down and destroyed, let it be that we all go together.

Cheers for Obama for showing some backbone in his second term after allowing the republicans and businessmen to walk all over him in his first. The republicans want to reduce our federal spending, we should give the what they want.

I suggest that the Federal Government take a vacation. Close up, shut down, mothball facilities for a week or so. Make no payments to non federal government employees, states, cities or other non federal sponsored groups. Close and mothball all national parks and federal lands. Inform farmers to remove their livestock from Federal land, pay a high fee or lose their livestock.

When the republicans say “When government spending declines, more money is available for the private sector”, what they are actually saying is “more money will be left to workers for private business to steal.

If some of us must feel the pain, lets make sure that the pain is felt by all.


According to a new, Washington Post/ABC poll 26% of Americans approve and 67% disapprove of the GOP's approach to spending. Obama's numbers are 43% and 52%.

Both parties give their rivals low marks, but troublingly for the GOP, its approval rating among its own is only nominally higher than Obama's overall rating. Just 44 percent of Republicans said they approved of their party's approach, compared to 51 percent who disapproved, and Republicans were more likely than Democrats or independents to say they disapproved of both sides of the debate.

The results are in line with other recent polls, which have found that most Americans disapprove of congressional Republicans' plans, and are more willing to blame them for a scuttled sequester deal.

Salt Lake City, UT

ECR - You hit it right on the head. DN, the Utah voice of the GOP. Easy to carry out that mission is Utah. However, there are a growing number of us Utahns who are becoming weary of this shallow minded thinking. Any objective analysis can demonstrate that a balanced approach is needed (including, but not limited to spending cuts). More revenue will be required to do the job - and yes that will cause some pain.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

According to this editorial, "When government spending declines, more money is available for the private sector." This is a silly statement. As things now stand, when government spending declines, Uncle Sam simply has to borrow less. The money you're talking about is debt. This will not be available for the private sector. (Actually, it already is, but the private sector doesn't need to borrow more.)

If the editorial had said, "When government taxes less, more money is available for the private sector," it may have been more correct. But the private sector already has plenty of cash. It has been stockpiling it, earning miserly returns on it, and in some cases effectively paying the government to hold it safe. Corporations claims to have been waiting to invest when demand justifies increased investment.

Oh yes, the "D" word. Demand. Now, why has demand been so low? Because the consumer classes have been getting underpaid for 30 years and the recession hit them hard. The investors already have plenty of money. It's the consumers who don't. This is a pretty simple puzzle to solve, and the answer isn't to slash government spending.

Hockey Fan
Miles City, MT

Blame Game + Crisis Management = Washington D.C. Politics

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@Tturbo 99 - "For heavens sake we are talking about spending an aggregate 2% less than planned for the coming fiscal year"

It's 2% of the entire federal budget, but since non-discretionary budget is unaffected, the cuts must come out of the remaing discretionary budget, which is only 1/3 of the total budget. That pushes up the cuts significantly when the reach they agency level. I'm among close to a million DOD employees looking at a 20% loss in pay. I assure you, that 2% of the aggregate budget looks a lot scarier from my vantage point. Furloughs and layoffs will NOT strengthen this economy.

The direct impact to me could be mitigated if there was more flexibility in where the cuts are to be taken. That's a private sector luxury.

@red state pride - "After WW2 ended the Federal Budget was cut by 40% and the private sector went gangbusters."

No, GDP plummeted after the war by more than twice the percentage we just experienced in the recent recession as government spending went down and the economy transitioned to peacetime.

Pleasant Grove, UT

@Kent C. DeForrest "The money you're talking about is debt. This will not be available for the private sector."

Whenever the government spends money, the private sector has to pay for it eventually. The money has to come from somewhere. It comes out of the taxpayer's pocket, either now or in the future. The taxpayer knows this, and behaves accordingly.

@ECR "this week they...want his leadership to solve this fiscal problem."

Mostly I want him to cut the demagoguery and tell the truth. Maybe that's too much to ask. Remember when he said this would be not red America, not blue America, but the United States of America? I remember that.

Camarillo, CA

Re: Res Novae, Ashburn, VA - So you are "among close to a million DOD employees looking at a 20% loss in pay." Interesting - and no doubt scary. No doubt rumors are flying - our leaders are making sure of that. Let's look at the numbers though. 1,000,000 employees at average loaded comp of $100,000 means a total outlay of $100,000,000,000, of which 20% would be $20,000,000,000. So far might hold water. Looking further. The whole DOD budget for 2013 is $614,000,000,000. The total reduction from that budget ("cuts") is $44,000,000,000, or about 7%. That means that if roughly half of the reduction is coming out of your compensation, the remaining $28,000,000,000 is a reduction of about 5% from the balance of the DOD budget. So who's making the decision to stick employees with 20% cuts and limit the reductions to the balance of the department to 5%? Really causes me to question the hysteria.

Cedar Hills, UT

For all those paying even casual attention to Barack and his antics over the past 4 years this Sequestration side show is nothing new - actually very predictable. Invent a crisis and then attempt to take advantage of it. That is Barack Obama in a nutshell. The surprising thing I think to most people - even democrat's - is the depth that Barack will stoop to in order to achieve his political ends. The man will stoop to any level no matter how low. The welfare of the country doesn't even factor in to the man's thinking. Barack is all about revolution and communist ideology - it was how he was raised and how he was tutored by all of his mentors. Let thousands of dangerous criminals go onto the street - you bet! Hurt the vital parts of our military - why not. Layoff as many as possible - might as well. Yes if Obama is anything at all anymore he is predictable ... sadly predictable. This sequestration is Barack's ugly child but try to get him to own up to that. The real goal - hurt the GOP in the next election. Collateral damage to the innocent - who cares. OBama - a man without honor.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

Tturbo99 - These are not rumors. Official notifications must wait until sequestration is formally ordered, but paycuts and furloughs are imminent. I'm certainly not going to get down into the weeds of internal DOD budget allocations in an anonymous internet forum, but the figures are a little more complicated than what you have.

There is no "hysteria" here, only the grim reality that we'll do what we must -- and that a country that asked us to support two major conflicts has suddenly decided to place the burden of decades of questionable spending decisions on the backs of those of us who wanted to do something more to serve than stick a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on our cars.

Ogden, UT

Again the glaring truth is His Highness brought this to the table and now he can't deal with it. Although I believe this is his way of getting to the Military. Have you noticed there has never been so many crisis's as there has been since his first Coronation. He is a crisis!!

Cedar Hills, UT

can you imagine having Obama as the CEO of your company? Holy smokes you would be out of business in 3 months. This man is an embarrassment...and completely dishonest and clueless.

to comment

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