Published: Thursday, Oct. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"...But beyond the effects of the shutdown, the report also gives strong
indications that businesses are reluctant to hire, and are in fact limiting the
hours of their workers, in response to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
The program has built-in incentives for businesses to hire part-time, rather
than full-time, workers. It also contains incentives for some businesses to drop
the health coverage of their employees and let them use Obamacare’s health
exchanges, instead....".One way to make more profit is to reduce
payroll.Another way to make more profit is to stop providing/sharing
the cost of health insurance for employees.If you can achieve both
profit goals above, while blaming the effects, of reaching those goals, on the
POTUS...and get away with it...why not?
Train wreck still coming, our grandchildren will still be paying off our massive
debts down the debt. Will we be known as "The Most Selfish
Generation" 50 years from now?
Good editorial. I'm not so proud to be a Democrat, just now, to be honest.
I'm not at all a Ted Cruz, and I'm not a Tea Partier, but I wanted
the country to default, There are lot of things that need to change, but
unfortunately it's not going to happen with this group of plutocratic
players and their handlers. I wish the Arab Spring would wash shore in the US.
Everyone is so passive, happy with their lot, not so willing to get out in the
street with a sign to demonstrate their dismay and disillusionment. All of what
we just experienced is going to replay and replay. We need someone to step up to
the plate and agree to only be President for four years, and to tell everyone
that's because they're going to do everything in the first two years
that our Presidents only get around thinking its safe to do in year six. Where
to find real leaders?
The shutdown conspirators, Cruz, Lee, the 80 legislators who signed the shutdown
letter should be tried for sedition. GOP is anti democracy: HR-368.Using their elected offices, these seditious conspirators tried to force the
nation into abandoning Obamacare. When that didn't work out for them, they
threatened to throw the nation into default. This tactic is just a
backdoor way to abandon the Social Security program. Open your eyes! Payments
into the SS trust fund are borrowed by the government (us), secured with
treasury bonds. That is one of the biggest debts our government has, we owe the
money to ourselves. Nothing wrong with that, it makes us interest. The GOP wants
to default on that debt. Why? Answer: same reason they want to defund
Obamacare. $$$. They want to privatize and profit, while we pay up.Enough hypocritical complaints from the people who ran up the debt in the
first place. They started two unfunded wars, gave tax breaks to their wealthy
selves/cronies during wartime. They deregulated banks, crashed the economy,
destroyed the tax base. Stimulus was needed to overcome effects of terrible GOP
policies.Shutdown cost $24B. $24,000,000,000.00 Smooth
move, deficit hawks.
And these "children" will wait until the very last minute again to do
their job.Debt ceiling is no time to talk about what got spent
previously. We need congress to work together on a compromise that brings down
our deficit.If Mitt Romney studied this situation from a purely
business standpoint (ie void of politics) his conclusions would certainly
involve a comprehensive approach.And I would bet that his approach
would includeSpending cuts - Entitlement and defense primarilyRevenue increases - Taxes In a divided congress, it MUST include
both.Doing both is the responsible way to go.We better accept
that or nothing will happen.
The agreement was never intended to be a resolution, just a way to get past this
poorly conceived, self inflicted crisis originated by the tea party wing of the
Republican party. As the President and Senate leaders rightly said, bargaining
with a gun to your head is not good faith bargaining. Hopefully, the failure of
this ill conceived tactic will lead to cooler heads prevailing in a conference
committee that can really address these issues. It is interesting to see that
the Senate seems to be the only hope we have for bipartisanship. It has the
least amount of tea party representation.
I'll agree with the argument that we've just kicked the can down the
road and we're going to have all the nonsense again in just a few months
time.You haven't even given the ACA a chance yet though. How
do you know it's a disaster? That's like your other article's
comparison of a kid saying "I don't like meatloaf" and hasn't
even tried it yet.
D-News, FYI - the solution was "historic" because it averted what would
have been a disaster imposed upon the country by a political minority. Yes, you
make some fine points, especially on the archaic tax code, but give credit to
Reid for keeping the US solvent.
Republicans should commit to improve Omamacare, and quit shutting down the
government in an attempt to overturn it.In this great country, the
system allows a person to sell their house short so a man can afford to run for
and then serve in congress, stiffing the bank that lent the money what they are
owed. If the system allows this so one man can pursue his dream at the expense
of other people, why does that same man fight against a system which would allow
all people, including the poor among us to get decent health care?
Yes, kicking the can down the road. And just what were the lessons learned by
the extremists?Here's a hint:"“I’ll
vote against it,” Republican Representative Fleming stated.. “But
that will get us into Round 2. See, we’re going to start this all over
You got it right, but right now the divide between the two factions that the
American people have sent to Washington, are so far apart on priorities, that
any major agreement is like fitting the square peg in the round hole. Either
one side or the other will have to fundamenatly cave in on their principles.
Or, the American people will have to choose in the next 2 elections one side or
the other to send to Washington. I don't see either of those options
happening. And I don't see a third possible option either. Anyone else?
This essay is the starting point for a great conversation. There is much to
like and just as much to dislike about what is said.Perhaps Senator
Reid's "historic" comment was a reference to the bipartisan nature
of the bill that was passed. For two weeks the Speaker of the House insisted
that a clean CR would not pass in the House but last night's vote, on a
bill very similar to the one the Senate proposed before October 1, passed with
bipartisan support. That aspect is indeed historic in this volitile political
climate.Your comments about employers, most of them small business
owners, finding ways to drop coverage for their employees is no doubt true, just
as businesses, even large ones, dropped the prescription drug option of their
insurance plans for retirees on pensions once the Medicare Prescription Drug
plan was passed in 2003. But maybe those employers are realizing what many
governments and business leaders elsewhere in the world have discovered, like
Canada's David Beatty who recently wondered "why big U.S. companies
want to be in the business of providing health care anyway" -
"that’s a government function," he said simply.
The glitches found in the opening days of the ACA rollout are common in the
rollout of any automated system. Imagoine anyone rolling a system with 300
million potential users. It is ironic, as you point our that the noise create4d
by those who were irresponsiblky trying to defund the ACA provided cover for the
problems and actually caused the opinions of the ACA to rise - just another
example of the poor judgement shown by those who led this mess.While
talking about about the need to address deficit spending and getting our arms
around "entitlements", you didn't mention that despite the toxic
political climate that exists in Washington today, the deficit has actaully been
cut in half from the deficit that was inherited from the last Adminstration. I
thinks its worth mentioning, if for no other reason that to add some positve
energy to the effort.I hope your essay is in no way justifying that
actions of a small minority who put our country in serious financial jeopardy
and cost our economy over $24 billion in doing so.
"Will we be known as "The Most Selfish Generation" 50 years from
now?"No doubt, unless some things change. The bottom line is
that we have to live within our means which, of course means we have to serious
examine every aspect of our spending and spend only what needs to be spent. But
we also need to look at our income. Maybe a good starting point would be the
tax rates that existed during one of the most robust economic periods of our
history - the Clinton years. Until we take a look as what it will honestly take
to stop runaway spending and start paying off what we owe, we will, indeed,
deserve the totle of most selflish.I was amazed during this two week
stanbdoff to hear supposedly rational people stating they didn't to raise
the debt ceiling, or as "pscles" said above "I wanted the country to
default". How will that get us on the right track? Or is that coming from
someone who has taken the bankruptsy option in their life. Let's pay our
bills and stop being selfish.
Dear neighbors, The 144 who voted for default last night are not the
fiscal conservatives you believed. They would allow the country to default,
somehow claiming that a bill they see as financially risky (ACA) could be
improved by much greater financial irresponsibility (default). Their names are
online at the US House Clerk's website under roll call 550. If you are a
republican, you should replace these representatives. If you are American, you
should be certain that they are not reelected.
The DN has once again showed not just it's partisan slant but it's
partisan filter by distorting the realities of business and health insurance,
then continuing it's ever present fetish with debt. Never once does the
editorial board take a broad and comprehensive view of the economy and it's
problems. If it did it would have to admit that the debt is a symptom, albeit a
dangerous one, not a cause. Some independent but economically very
conservative think tanks are starting to come around to this idea, but then they
are thinkers not ideologues. Debt will diminish with growth, but
growth can't happen until we have a work force educated for the 21st
century, and Businesses willing to invest in the future not just the next
quarter(taxes are a part of this). Once the workforce is actually
technology competent and competing in 21st century industry, some of the wealth
distribution issues will be taken care of. Part of the problem now is nobody is
going to pay for dumb. The realities of old age entitlements will
need to be addressed but don't look as daunting in a 21st century growing
Re:JoeBlowYesCA is the poster child for how a combination of
how modest tax increases and spending cuts can make a big difference.From
Reuters May 2013:"S&P had raised its credit rating on
California's general obligation debt by one notch to A with a stable
outlook from A-minus with a positive outlook after Brown's initial budget
plan in January, which predicted an $850 million surplus that would mark a break
with California's long history of budget deficits.We need to
"fix" the sequester so it doesn't cut investments for future growth
such as research and education (Headstart).We need to address
Defense spending---which is so out of control the GAO can't determine where
and how much money has been spent. Perhaps the winding down of 2 wars will
help, but there needs to be a serious top to bottom accounting and spending
curbs/cuts.We should also eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes
as we did with Medicare.
DMN, the Democrats would have preferred a longer deal. But the Republicans
would not have permitted that. Don't forget that most Tea Partier voted
against restarting the government at all and would have allowed a default.
I agree that this just "kicks the can" further down the road, but am
diametrically opposed to the arrogant attitude of this editorial that criticizes
the actions of those who sought to do something more than just "kicking the
can further down the road". Their determined opposition would have shown
willingness to fight and not procrastinate the fight, which the editors seem to
understand still remains to be fought.Kudos to the Republican
delegation to the House who unitedly opposed "kicking the can down the
road"; kudos to Rob Bishop, Jason Chaffetz and Chris Stewart. Kudos to Mike
Lee whose voice was prominent and who vote was consistent in opposing any
further "kicking the can down the road". It is heartening
to see a few of our LDS elders doing something to save the Constitution which is
indeed "hanging by a thread".
I basically agree with the editorial but one thing should be pointed out.
Funding decisions should be made by the Representatives of the people in the
House in conjunction with the President's prioities and approval of the
Senate. These CR's are an abrogation of the House's responsibilities.
And it isn't their fault- Harry Reid won't even give House passed
bills the time of day. There is no reason to even have a House of Rep. if the
President just gets all the funding he wants for any and everything he wants-
that's called a dictatorship. Another thing that bothers me is this
focus on polls and who "won" or "lost". What was best for the
Country? Obviously the so-called shutdown was bad for our economy even though
the Govt barely shutdown. But what about Obamacare? Is that good for our future?
It may not matter since apparently no one is even signing up. Maybe if we all
ignore it it will just go away.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments