Put aside juvenile politics, find real solutions

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 20, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    DN - lead by example rather than by telling us to do what you yourself are unwilling to do.

  • awsomeron Waianae, HI
    May 19, 2012 11:18 p.m.

    Fine! Stop Abortion and Illegals and I would consider doing that.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2012 2:21 a.m.

    The obvious problem is that we have Senators like Hatch whose main main campaign message is "I won't let them close Hill AFB'. If it isn't the right thing for the Country or in the strategic best interest of the DOD then why keep it open? As a make work program? I'm not saying that it is or isn't the right thing to do but it's that mentality when it comes to SS benefits, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, agriculture subsidies, subsidized student loans and on and on that is going to send us into oblivion
    As a side note I really wish everyone would stop hating on Paul Ryan. The man has a starting point which has actually been passed by the House. The President can't even get a single vote for his budget in the Senate. At least Ryan has his party on board with his budget. The President can't even get a Democrat to support his budget let alone a Republican.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 18, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    As many other posters have pointed out, the Paul Ryan plan is hardly a 'responsible proposal.' If enacted, it will increase both the deficit and unemployment.

    Our economic woes continue, but we have seen some encouraging news. The private sector really is growing, and hiring. What's driving unemployment right now are the cutbacks made by states and communities. Budget cuts by government mean firing people. Let's be blunt; that's what's going on. When you cut spending, you're firing people. That means fewer consumers, fewer purchasers, less demand. We're in a demand side recession. How is decreasing demand going to help anything at all?

    The deficit is a serious problem, and needs to be seriously addressed. We can grow our way out of it, however. The current crisis is unemployment. So how is increasing unemployment going to reduce unemployment?

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    May 18, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    "...The more prudent course, however, would be for voters to insist on candidates; all candidates for federal office; to articulate how they would pursue a realistic solution to the fiscal crisis in Washington...".


    DN readers have exposed the Ryan Budget for what it is, as well as what it does and does not do.

    The Ryan Budget has been adopted, by Romney.

    The Ryan Budget is a non-starter for all Americans except defense contractors and wealthy Republican donors.

    Realistic solution?

    Still waiting.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 18, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    At this point, it is the Republicans who need to come to the table. The reasonable revenue increases Democrats were willing to bargain for momths ago (plus more!) are automatically happening on January 1. With each tick of the clock the Republicans lose bargaining power. They can screech louder and louder, but they are foolish to stay away from the bargaining table. No matter how successful Republicans are in the upcoming election, they will not have a filibuster-proof (60 seat) majority in the Senate, so taxes are going up (with absolutely none of their agenda being enacted) unless they bend.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 18, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Asking the poor and middle class to sacrifice, while leaving the more well to do alone is not a fair solution.

    Unfortunately, Americans have elected enough Tea Party types who insist on this, and they will not compromise. Democrats and moderate Republicans will not give up everything, while the other side gives up nothing.

    This is the reason a solution is so hard to find.

    If Americans want change, they need to elect representatives who now how to work with the other side and give some so they can take some. Otherwise we are stuck with what we have.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 18, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    This coming from a paper that so eagerly publishes anti-Obama cartoons and letters? From a paper that weekly publishes one of the biggest hacks out there, Charles Krauthammer?

    This from a paper that printed an endless amount of birther letters?

    What ever happened to lead by example???

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    Either side that characterizes the other's proposals as "dead on arrival" (and both sides have done so) thwart productive discussions. Ryan's budget has flaws, yet the opposition's budget has not been put forth. Look at the problems, jobs, debt, education, military preparedness, energy, the environment and then solve them. Don't just stone-wall discussion.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 18, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is criticizing the House Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan for cutting food stamps and other assistance programs for the poor.

    In a letter sent to the House Agriculture Committee on Monday, the bishops say the budget fails to meet certain “moral criteria” by disproportionately cutting programs that “serve poor and vulnerable people.”

    A second letter sent Tuesday to the Ways and Means Committee criticizes a provision that makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim child tax credits. The bishops called the credit “one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation.”

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    May 18, 2012 10:08 a.m.

    I read that the Federal government spends more on "defense" than anything else, including Social Security or Medicare. For FY 2013, the Federal government has budgeted $851 billion for security spending, more than the $820 billion requested for Social Security, or the $523 billion for Medicare. Security spending includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingencies, and departments such as Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and the State Department.

    What's more SS is entirely self-funding being 2.4 trillion dollars in surplus actually, with the surplus held in treasury bonds representing money appropriated for and from the retirees themselves but applied to other purposes by Congress. The so-called "tax cuts" which are a blatant diminution of Social Security funding need to be reversed.

    Unfortunately we have a Congress that is military mad, will not even shut down ANY military base in friendly foreign nations, always votes for war or whatever euphemism they invent for war, and can't seem to keep its hands off Social Security funds.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    May 18, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    Many thanks to those who have successfully refuted the DN's ridiculous claim that Ryan has presented a "realistic budget proposal." Add to those comments Ryan's and the Heritage Foundation's claim that with his budget unemployment would drop to 2.8% by 2018, a rate that hasn't been seen since the early 1920's and in the opinion of some economists isn't possible and might not be good for the economy. Also, consider that in Ryan's budget, 2/3 of the cuts will directly impact poor people and his tax cuts will definitely benefit the wealthy more than others.

    The only juvenile behavior has been displayed by one uncompromising party over the last several years. When Republican Congressman Alan West claims "there are 78-81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party; when 238 of 242 Republican Congressmen sign Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge to "never support a tax increase", for any reason; when seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel voted against their own resolution just to deny the president a victory; I think we can see who the juveniles are.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 18, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    Once again the Democartic position is mis represented, as "maily" tax increases for the rich. The position is actually...we'll talk entitlements and solcial welfare but not unless you talk revenue, which must include tax increases on those who make over a million a year. Very, very different.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 18, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    You ask for thoughtful compromise, yet you put out a highly partisan editorial. As Truthseeker pointed out, Ryan's budget is not "realistic". Not only that, due to its large tax cuts, it doesn't even claim to bring our a balanced budget for about thirty years, despite the fact that it eliminates almost all government.

    Most budget experts have concluded that either Romney's plan will increase the deficit above and beyond the President's, or they can not even analyze it because it is so vague as to be meaningless. He has promised tax cuts and large defense increases, but has not specified how he will pay for any of it.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 18, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    Exactly. But that will take leadership and cooperation. Those are two things sorely lacking on all sides in our national governmental leaders.

    How about we clean house and replace all those who hold office now? And how about we overturn the most dangerous threat to our nation -- Citizens United?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 18, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    DN thinks Ryan's budget is a realistic proposal?

    The tax cuts in Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.

    The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050.  Since, as CBO notes, “spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]” and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of government would largely have to disappear.