Prudent budgeting

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 31, 2011 4:24 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick | 3:43 p.m. " what Clinton surplus? According to the GAO the gross national debt increased every year Clinton was in office. The smallest deficit was $23 billion, not exactly balanced.

    If you are thinking of the projected surplus for the fiscal 2001 year, that is a myth that depended on the economy grown, and was destroyed when the recession of 2001 (started in late 2000) hit.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 31, 2011 3:43 p.m.

    Sounds like a Keynesian thing to do.

    Save up while the economy is good. Spend when it's bad.

    Too bad Bush didn't do that. He spent when the economy was good. Then when it soured, he spent more thus forcing the debt up.

    Just imagine if he had kept Clinton's surplus!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 31, 2011 3:25 p.m.

    "One of the flaws in our system is during high-income times we add a bevy of employees, benefits and programs that continue in hard times and are difficult to pay for in lesser economies. Utah is still a well-run state, and I compliment the current administration, which seems to be tackling tough problems in a courageous and prudent manner."

    Bud - can you see the contradiction in your statement here? "Utah is still a well-run state" because they have decided to give benefits to current and future employees. I don't think anyone is getting rich from employment with the state. But if the jobs include attractive benefits the state will continue to attract high quality employees...and keep them. It's smart business.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Jan. 31, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    re: Esquire | 7:38 a.m. "back in the 60s and 70s, when Utah was more rational."

    When the Democrat party was rational, Utah was a Democrat majority State.

    It was the Democrat party, not the majority of Utahns, who dramatically shifted positions in the late 60s and 70s. When the Democrat party shifted hard to the left on social and moral issues, the people of Utah went looking for a party that more closely represented their values, which had not shifted.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 31, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    the problem with your premise is that you think the increase of "Employees" is due to Staet wanting to expand the state.

    The reason there are more employeees is because the residents of Utah DEMANDED more services from our state government. "YOU have the money, why should I have to wait in the DL lines for two hours to get my DL?"

    Now that the times are hard the same people are the ones clamoring for reducing the state governement.

    Over the past four years Both Huntsmans and Herbert has reduced the size of the government down about 2000 workers. They have cut the benifits of the employees.

    Here is what I predict for the State governement. When the times turns around and the ecomony is striving, the State governement will lose a lot of their best and brightest employees. Why? Because of the way they are being treated now.

    Why do you care? Because these self same employees are the ones that make your interaction with the State much more painless (try getting a birth certificate from california compared to Utah) as possible.

    New bright potential employees won't come either. so be ready for a painful state.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 31, 2011 7:38 a.m.

    Rah, Rah, Rah! The rainy day fund pre-dates your Republican favorites. The most advanced reforms came from Rampton (D) and Matheson (D), back in the 60s and 70s, when Utah was more rational.