In our opinion: Shutdown solution just kicks the can — again


Return To Article
  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Thomas Friedman's recent editorial in the NYT clearly points out our kick the can mentality. There will come a time, much as Greece, Italy and Spain have found out, when the bills will have to be paid. Succeeding generations will have the right to ask what we were thinking or even if we were thinking. They'll probably also be incredulous at out environmental policies and clean air inaction.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    re: ECR Yesterday morning

    "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"

    That is what is so tragically ironic if not hypocritical. If the populace adapted the same fiscal philosophy as Congress then they would have no problem making sure our financial house is in order.

    re; Joe Blow also yesterday morning

    "Reducing spending, not the debt ceiling, is how you address the problem.

    Why is that so hard for so many to understand?"

    Isn't funny that there are about 536 people who can't grasp that.

    When I was unemployed for awhile (in 2010), I stopped eating out and lived on Blacks Beans & Rice or Peanut Butter Sandwiches.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:58 p.m.

    The shutdown did not cost anything since the government does not make anything. Everybody will get paid all their back pay. Nobody wins here and we all do this same thing again, talk about nuts.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    happy, the deficit is a symptom of a structurally deficient slow growing economy.

    I didn't say we were going to have this technically competent workforce. I said we need a technically competent workforce to have a structurally sound economy that can grow adequately in the 21st century.

    Ironically, the President has proposed just such policies, but the Republicans, the party of business have blocked them all.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    when you have no real leadership in the White House or from the leader of the senate what do you really expect other than "kick the can" politics as usual? We have non-serious men (Barack and Harry) whose main focus is politics not leadership for the country and I think this is painfully clear after 5 ugly years.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    ASking corrupt leaders from two 'parties' that are the same is rather ironic, yet come to these forums to see people expose their ignorance and naively is the only reason to read, other than to laugh!

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Oct. 17, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards. When did the president gain authority to levy taxes and unilaterally approve appropriations? Did the constitution change recently?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Re: "But I think the incentive for companies to drop health coverage entirely could be a good thing in the long run"...

    You think the same as ACORN and Obama. It's called the called "crisis strategy", or the "Clowerd-Piven Strategy". It's been a part of the socialists goals since the early 60's.

    Google it and read up on it. It's the theory Obama taught when he was teaching at Chicago University.

    It's also part of the reason SOME people cringed when Obama promised to fundamentally transform America (into what he was teaching in college).

    It's working. ACA was a BIG part of it. But it's just the first baby-step (otherwise it would alarm people).

    Like Democrats keep saying... "It's not government healthcare"! Like Conservatives can't say anything or see what's coming until it's 100% Government Healthcare.

    If you have to wait till it creeps up little-by-little, and you can't say anything until is finally 100% government socialized medicine... that's a great strategy, because by then it's too late to change it!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    Both sides seem to agree that spending is too high and that revenues are too low, but two opposing solutions are being presented.

    Some think that the answer is to raise taxes - on someone else - until the budget is balanced. They are ignorant of the "true" tax rates that the "rich" paid just as they are ignorant of the consequences of those tax rates. Those rates are the reason that most of America's industry is produced offshore. Those rates are the reason why real wages have fallen and millions of jobs have been lost.

    Others think that the government has greatly overstepped its authority and that government is draining money from the private sector to pay for personal services (ObamaCare). Those people want government out of our lives. Those people believe in the principle of hard work = prosperity. Those people know the difference between "general welfare" and "personal welfare".

    Harry Reid wants our grandchildren to pay for his spending.

    Mike Lee told us that deficit spending must stop.

    Which side you take tells us whether you are willing to be responsible for your actions or whether you want someone else to "bail" you out.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    To "pschles" listen to the speech that Mike Lee gave yesterday. It is on YouTube and is titled "It is always worth it to do the right thing". It doesn't matter if you like him or not, he explains thing in a clear manner that is easy to understand. He explains how we can't just press forward with bad legislation that is already failing to do what was promised. He sounds more President than Obama did with his rant about Republicans.

    To "Ranch" you want to know how we can already tell the ACA is a disaster. The biggest way we can tell that it is a disaster is the basic promises made are already broken.

    First, we were promised that it would lower the cost of insurance. That promise was broken on October 1, when all of the people who looked into it found that their premiums would be 25% to 200% higher under the ACA.

    Next, we were told that it would reduce the debt. Now the CBO says it will raise the debt by $340 billion over the next 10 years.

    To "donahoe" any default would have been the choice of the President, and the President only.

  • Freonpsandoz Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    I agree that the incentive for companies to hire part-time workers is a concern. But I think the incentive for companies to drop health coverage entirely could be a good thing in the long run. The disparity in health coverage between those who work for a corporation and those who do not has never been a good thing. I have seen several self-employed friends turn to corporate employment simply because they had a family member with health problems and they needed health coverage that they couldn't get at an affordable price as individuals. This discourages entrepreneurship. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans had either company-supplied health insurance or Medicare/Medicaid left the remainder marginalized with no political clout. If the problems with the ACA can be fixed, the exchanges may turn out to be better for the country than company-provided health coverage was.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    2 bits

    True enough, and I think that early on when the Simpson Bowles commission was formed, that, was the goal. To take the political out of what should just be accounting 101. However, when the Bowles commission came back with ideas that some politicians did not like, we went back to politics as usual. And, for better or worse, partisan politics and blaming the other side is just how things work in our system. I wish we could just throw the whole problem to accountants, who will make the hard choices and we agree to live with them. Kind of like arbitration.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    I would be happy to cut spending to balance the budget and then pay more taxes to pay off the debt. It is only fair for me to have less money so that my grandchildren will have more. But if I pay more taxes and Reid, Pelosi, etc all stand up and talk about helping this group or that group ("Please vote for us we are compassionate.") I will be pretty steamed.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    Anyone who thinks we can just blame ONE SIDE (and that's good enough)... is drunk on partisan coolaid. The only way to get here is together, and the only way out is together.

    The longer we focus exclusively on who is to blame... the longer we will make ZERO progress.

    The media needs to stop trying to figure out who they should blame and who the American people blame, and who gets more blame, and who gets hurt by the blame more, and so on and so on....

    I'm getting so tired of all the blame and trying to figure out who is to blame and how we can blame them even more (as if that fixes anything).

    In ANY Leadership Training I've been in... the first rule is to NOT focus on placing blame.

    So why do our so called "Leaders" seem to focus on NOTHING BUT the blame? That's the big sign of a poor leader (when they try to affix the blame first, or think that blaming someone is important to solving the problem).

    We need to quit focusing on blame and solve the problem.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Defaulting would have been bankruptcy by definition. The tea party by their extreme radical tactics and votes yesterday was voting for default and bankruptcy. To claim they want to cause an actual bankruptcy to prevent a future hypothetical bankruptcy associated with the national debt that has been about the same on for fifty years is disingenuous.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:59 a.m.


    What solution?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    The tea party messed up so bad that the President can force them to vote no, veto it. They lost future unfair leverage by using unfair leverage.

  • rpgoss American Fork, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    If both the President and Congress had been in conformance with the 1974 Budget Act, as amended, they would have made the hard policy decisions about funding levels for programs before the federal fiscal year occurring on October 1st. There would have been no need for any “supercommittee” meeting in December. The supercommittee would have met before October to iron out those differences. There would be no partial government shutdown in October, for the federal agencies would all have been funded by normal appropriations bills for the Oct 2013 through Sept 2014 fiscal year. In short, there would be no “historic” agreement needed because the President and Congress under the 1974 Budget Act would be doing the work specified in that legislation as the work we expect from them as servants of the people.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    The Deseret News told us that what Mike Lee did was a "stunt"!

    Was it a "stunt" when the Deseret News had to face facts and then fire many life-long employees - or face bankruptcy? What the Deseret News doesn't seem to understand is that Obama is bankrupting America. We can't pay for his spending. The Deseret News doesn't seem to understand that Obama has levied the higest tax increase in history on the lower and middle classes with ObamaCare. The Deseret News doesn't seem to undertand that millions of Americans have lost their jobs since Obama signed ObamaCare into law. The Deseret news doesn't seem to understand that ObamaCare will cost an additional hundreds of thousands of jobs with many workers having their hours cut back.

    Does the Deseret News understand that unemployed people don't buy newspapers and that failing businesses can't afford to advertise?

    Yes, Harry Reid kicked the can down the road - again - but the Deseret News blames Mike Lee for "causing" Harry Reid to kick that can. How about if the Deseret News does its job and investigates why Harry Reid and Obama are trying to bankrupt America?

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Joe Blow

    We understand it, but for many years now the politicians have acted like teenagers with their parents credit card. In this case an American Express Black Card. And for years they have spent and spent without any limit. Well, the debt ceiling represents a limit, and if they don't reduce spending, which it seems they don't want to do, then the only other option is to cut off their credit. To put it another way, yes the house voted to spend every dollar of debt and that kind of spending has added up to 17 trillion debt. Why is that so hard for some to understand? Maybe trillion is just too big of a number to comprehend.

  • djc Stansbury Park, Ut
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Who invented this "debt" meme? Perhaps a study of US History is in order. The current public debt as a percent of Gross Domestic Product is just a tiny bit over 100%, in 1946 the public debt was 121.7%. When were the best most productive years in the United States? Most economists will agree that the most productive years were the 1950's, 1960's and half the 1970's. In 1981, the public debt was 32.5% of GDP. Since 1981, the debt has been steadily increasing (except for a brief time from about 1996 to 2001. No matter what party controlled either branch of the government, the debt has in effect fallen from a peak in 1946 to a low in 1981 and then started a climb back to historic numbers.

    If the economy is working well for the middle class, the debt will fall. If the economy is strangling the middle class the debt will rise.

    But the whole "kick the can, debt is bad, woe is me" meme is wrong and evil and will probably be successful in destroying the most vibrant economy ever.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    We've been kicking our financial problems down the road for a long time. I have no doubt they will wait until it's entirely too late before they actually do something about it.

    Trying to solve big problems during a government shutdown was a bad tactic (it takes time, patience, and statesmanship to resolve huge problems like this, not hurry up, it's an emergency, and brinksmanship).

    They gave themselves a little time. But I have no confidence they will even work on these problems during that time. They will wait till the deadline (or after) every time.

    The problem is... what happens when it really is too late?

    Not an artificial political deadline... but an actual financial collapse.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    red state pride:

    The lesson learned for Republicans should be that you get a lot more accomplished using honey than vinegar. Maybe the echo chamber on the right is just too big and too loud, but you guys lost the Presidential election and the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

    Why did you think you had the leverage to do far more than the election empowered you to?

    Maybe, just maybe, the insular arrogance on the right will be tempered just a bit, and Obama and Boehner can seriously move toward substantive tax and entitlements reform, including tweaks to Obamacare.

    But when the tea party - who has less than a majority in the House, is a minority in the Senate, and doesn't have the White House - decides to try and take out the President's signature program, it should surprise nobody that the opposition to this move is not embraced by everyone else outside your echo chamber.

    Spending needs to come down, but taxes need to go up, especially on those who have benefitted enormously from economic shifts.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "kicking the can down the road" has nothing to do with paying your bills.

    It has to do with not spending the money in the first place.
    The house voted to spend every dollar of debt that we incurred.

    Reducing spending, not the debt ceiling, is how you address the problem.

    Why is that so hard for so many to understand?

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:40 a.m.


    You say the debt is a symptom. Of what? I say irresponsible politicans who don't look any farther down the road than next weeks golf game, and have been doing so for decades.

    As for this magnificant 21st century technically educated workforce that you see coming on, I ask, When? We are almost into our 14th year of the 21st century. What makes you think things are going to change?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    We HAVE to stop demanding 100% of what we want. Doing so will get both sides nothing and be the worst thing for the country.

    If we cut $100 billion in spending and raised $100 billion in taxes, that is a good start. Can anyone disagree with that?

    Unfortunately, we cant have that. Some complain of the cuts and some complain of the taxes. So, we get nothing.

    I guarantee, I could sit down with reasonable people on the right or the left who sincerely wanted to do good for the country, and produce a decent solution. Not great for the right, or great for the left, but better than what we have.

    This is what frustrates well meaning Americans. (not the left wing or the right wing)

    They see how easy it would be to fix things, if that were the goal. But, alas, the goal is partisanship for the sake of party.

    Too many put party first and America second, and dress it up as patriotism.
    And there are enough of us who buy into it, that it makes reasonable changes impossible.

    I implore all to put America over party. And demand that from our officials.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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".

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:09 a.m.


    CA 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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    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 economy.

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    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?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:44 a.m.

    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 again.”

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    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?

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Oct. 17, 2013 5:01 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 17, 2013 4:35 a.m.

    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 include

    Spending cuts - Entitlement and defense primarily
    Revenue 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.

  • annes albuquerque, NM
    Oct. 17, 2013 4:33 a.m.

    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.

  • pschles USA, ID
    Oct. 17, 2013 4:31 a.m.

    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?

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:33 a.m.

    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?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:21 a.m.

    "...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?