Republicans and Democrats: It is time to compromise

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 11:25 p.m.

    @spring street:

    "the voters spoke clearly there must be a balanced approach that includes increases in revenue and a reduction in the budget."

    You got that right.

    The republicans should simply let Obama have his way re tax hikes. This will invariably cause the unemployment rate to jump and the economy to turn down. Then the Republicans can point the finger at the Democrats and say something like... 'see, we told ya so, now do you believe us.'

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    FYI America

    An article I came across, I would provide the link if the desnews allowed that ...


    Based on ThinkProgress’ review of all ballots counted so far, 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican — meaning that Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million. …”


    If this is correct, this means that Democrats revieved more votes for House of Representatives nation wide than Republicans did. It is only because of Gerymandering that they won more seats.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 11, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    Now that making Obama a one term president as a goal for the republican party has come and gone, it is not up to the party to make sure that their candidate, whom ever that might be, is going to be the best to govern the nation. That is going to be through action, not inaction.

    That should be an interesting transformation to watch. I have no idea how I will vote in four years - all options are open.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Let the rich leave. They sent the jobs out of the US and keep their millions in the Caymen islands. What exactly do they do for America?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 11, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser -- Perhaps the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered and deductions eliminated or cut back as some are suggesting for individual income taxes? I'm not an accountant so I never quite understand why it is better to structure taxes that way from a policy standpoint, but maybe that will keep our corporate rate more competitive with other countries. Just wondering what others with more understanding of these issues think about that. As far as capital gains taxes -- my opinion is that it would be a good idea if they go back to 20%. (And before everyone starts screaming that I just want to tax other people -- my taxes would increase if capital gains taxes go up.)

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    A few corrections:
    Total federal revenues for FY 2012 were 2.5 trillion, not 5 trillion. (Source Tax Policy Center)

    Capital gains are taxed at 15%, not 38%. If the Bush tax cuts lapse that will increase to 20%.

    Although the U.S. has the highest top marginal corporate tax rate in the world, our effective corporate tax rates are among the lowest in the developed world. Anyone who says the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world doesn't understand how taxes work.

  • hubbardesquire Alabaster, Alabama
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:20 p.m.

    @ one old man

    Good for you! Keep your compromise to yourselves. We don't want it and we don't need it!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:42 p.m.


    Yeah, I'm sure Obama was planning for the next election when he signed onto the auto bailout (started by Bush) soon after his inauguration.

    Romney's claim: "The President gave the auto companies to the UAW"

    "All the experts we talked to agreed that Romneys statement is just flat wrong. Our ruling: False."

    Apparently Obama didn't need Ohio since he won almost every swing state--including Florida.

    Where we (and even liberal economists) can agree:

    Spending restraint/cuts WHEN the economy is fully recovered. (We can develop the plan now to take effect later).


    "The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie."
    (Congressional Research Service)

    Another CRS report "The Fiscal Cliff': Macroeconomic Consequences of Tax Increases and Spending Cuts," makes the case for allowing the upper income Bush tax cuts to expire.

    last post

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:50 p.m.


    "The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years.

    In recent decades Federal revenue has generally fluctuated between 17-19% of GDP. By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9% of GDP, their highest level since 1970? By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3% of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959."

    (The Tax Policy Center)

    The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit. The vast majority of the shift was due to higher spending and slower-than-projected economic growth.

    (Brian Reidl, The Heritage Foundation)

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    Truthseeker, thank you for your clarification and input. You provide good information. I might add the following:

    Total Revenue to the US Treasury:
    2000 $3.7 Trillion
    2001 3.5 Trillion
    2002 2.3 Trillion
    2003 3.5 Trillion
    2004 3.9 Trillion
    2005 4.2 Trillion
    2006 4.7 Trillion
    2007 5.2 Trillion
    2008 4.7 Trillion (the Great Recession)
    2009 3.7 Trillion
    2010 4.7 Trillion
    2011 4.9 Trillion
    2012 5.0 Trillion
    2013 5.5 Trillion (Projected)

    As you can see, Obama has actually enjoyed more revenue to the Treasury than ever before, but has also run up more debt than any president ever.

    Immediately following the Great Depression and World War II the debt as a percentage of GDP hit about 122%. It is projected that our current debt % of GDP (above 100%) will remain for the foreseeable future.

    We can turn this around as a nation, but it will require discipline for a long period of time. Can politicians, who use campaign promises (Obama gave 100s of billions to Ohio auto unions and auto makers to win in Ohio this election) do the right thing?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 10, 2012 6:48 p.m.


    Aside from economic crisis, federal revenue increases are expected every year as a result of inflation and increases in population.

    The first tax cut — the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 — was signed into law June 7, 2001. It began to affect revenues almost immediately as "advance rebate" checks were mailed to millions of taxpayers starting that July. After the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that those rebates had already amounted to $35 billion. As a result, CBO said, federal income tax receipts fell that year, rather than posting an increase.

    Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In
    fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.

    The CBO said total revenues declined by 1.7%, but otherwise would have increased by 1.5%


  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 10, 2012 6:30 p.m.

    Both parties must work together to design good laws but the Republicans should always have as a part of every bill, revocation of a part of Obamacare. Republicans have a responsibility as stewards of our constitution to dismantle that terrible law even it they have to do it piece by piece.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    Truthseeker, you stated that taxes became too low to produce adequate revenue (to the Treasury). I disagree. Under President Bush the treasury realized records amounts of revenue. Even today, after the recession which dramatically reduced revenue to the government, the Treasury receives $5 Trillion dollars (you can Google it). That is a lot of money. Our problem is not a shortage of money and taxes.

    The problem is federal spending. Entitlement spending is dwarfing the federal budget. Interest on federal debt is too high, eating up too much of our tax dollars flowing to Washington. If anything, I would say that we should focus on debt reduction (thus saving tax dollars that are currently going to interest on our debt), and on entitlement reform. Our nation simply cannot provide the benefits promised without going bankrupt.

    How can government solve this problem in 2013? I think Simpson-Bowles is where we should start: there must be modest tax increases (not to fund a new government program!) along with reduction of federal programs and spending. If we are disciplined and do this long enough then our debt will be better and our economy stronger.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 10, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    The Bush tax cuts came with an expiration date for a reason. The tax cuts were going to blow an unsustainable hole in the debt if allowed to continue indefinitely. The CBO calculates that tax cuts have put the Treasury $6.1 trillion in the red.

    It is way past time to let them expire for upper levels of income. Eventually, as the economy gains strength, they need to expire for everybody. We need to raise or eliminate the salary cap on Social Security as well.

    The Bush tax cuts didn't ever stimulate the economy. At a certain point, taxes become too low to produce adequate revenue. That's where we are today.

    Republicans can accept the reality of the election and agree to compromise or they can ignore this election, refuse to compromise and cling to the fantasy that in 2014 they will be rewarded. Good luck with that. I would remind them however, given the outcome of this recent election, their ability to predict outcomes has been shown to be a failure.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    David, there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Thank you.

    Demonizing other Americans who don't hold extreme views does no one any good.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    the truth
    Holladay, UT

    Would you recognize the truth if you saw it?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    Elections matter, and Republicans got spanked. Let Obama govern.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    @David -- I agree with your last comment. I also think something has to be done about entitlements. I think Obama does too. Some Democrats may not, so that will be the struggle in the Democratic party. But you are right in saying that Republicans should agree to the tax increases Obama has proposed -- it's what the majority of the people want, whether you determine that by the fact Obama won or by polling that shows even a pretty good percentage of Republicans want it.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    You reach a point where nothing really matters anymore and America just crossed that line a few days ago. Liberal America has become liberal Europe. Our debt is 16 trillion... soon to be 20 trillion. Our unemployment is not going anywhere but up due to the continual tax hikes and all the while kids graduating college are faced with less hope and opportunities. You can wave the flag and live off emotion ... that is your choice but the ugly reality of an America in sharp decline isn't going anywhere. America has changed - no more the symbol of hard work and self reliance but instead has VOTED to take the hand out route - the entitlement route - the "ask what your country will GIVE you NOT what you can give to your country". JFK would be ashamed of the America of today. So would our founders. We squandered their brilliance and traded it for free stuff .... as long as it lasts that is. "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause" (Star Wars).

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    I obviously don't speak for all Americans, but my humble sense after the election is that Americans are expecting Republicans and Democrats to work together to get things done: fiscal cliff, tax changes, improve upon Obamacare, immigration, jobs & the economy, the Middle East, an energy policy...

    As a Republican I feel that free markets, wise regulation, and limited federal government powers will maximize our abilities as a nation. But at this time Republicans are a minority party in the US. Democrats outnumber us. Republicans are going to have to compromise, take the bitter medicine and swallow it. Otherwise, I fear GOP numbers in Congress will be diminished significantly in 2014. Americans are giving Congress a chance to solve some of these problems. Lets get it done.

    A caution to Democrats, however. You can't continue entitlement spending as has been done in the past. Our country is going broke because of our welfare state mentality. We simply cannot afford it and taxing the rich and printing money as fast as possible isn't going to solve this problem. You have to follow the laws of economics.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 10, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    J. Thompson:

    Yes, that's why Democrats increased their hold on the Senate. That's why President Obama the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes and the electoral college in a landslide. People were actually repudiating his policies. Sure.

    Do you realize how much fun it is to watch you guys spin?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:53 p.m.

    @ J Thompson 10:40 a.m. Nov. 10, 2012

    *What is going on? A half-percent margin constitutes a "mandate". *

    I recall Dubya won his re-election by a narrower margin & thought he had a mandate. Either, you have a bad memory or are incredibly biased?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    @one old man


    All you can do is copy someone else's thought and twist it? How democratic.

    If compromise is so grand,

    Shouldn't the left and the democrats lead the way?

    Show us all how it is done.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    @ procuradorfiscal

    "'s time for action by liberals that actually has a chance of helping the economy recover from 80 years of their deranged politics."

    Or, you could say... its only taken conservatives since 1980 to jack things up.

    re: John Charity Spring

    "There can be no compromise with foolishness and idiocy."

    So, we should ignore Boehner & McConnell? Works for me.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    If "compromise" is code for give in and let the Republicans destroy this country then, I say, "No way! It is not going to happen! Not now, not ever!"

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 11:47 a.m.

    Of course it is time for Republicans to compromise. Obama has the upper hand now, and not because of an election mandate. Just a few months ago, President Obama wanted $800 billion in additional revenue. In January, he gets 5 trillion in additional revenue. That deal is already done. Congress has already agreed to it by kicking the Bush Tax Cuts can down the road and agreeing to steep automatic spending cuts.

    President Obama doesn't want 5 trillion in additional revenue. Everyone agrees the tax hike and spending cuts are too much. He has offered compromise. Boehner is smart enough to make a deal, but will struggle to keep his party's radicals in check.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    Compromise with those whose actions are destroying everything our country depends on? Never!

    When an arsonist is pouring gasoline on your house with a torch in his other hand, you do not "compromise" and ask that he only pour 5 gallons of gas instead of 10 gallons. You do everything in your power to see that no gas gets poured and the the torch is extinguished immediately.

    Out of control spending is what is killing our country and economy, and it must be stopped. Until the spending is stopped, no amount of taxation will ever keep us from going bankrupt, and leaving our children enslaved to China to pay off Santa's borrowing to pay for all the "free stuff" politicians have given away.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    I always have to laugh when I hear that rich people will leave the country if we raise their taxes a little bit.


    The taxes on corporations have already been raised and is highest in the world,
    and the corporations have left the country in the most damaging way possible to the country - with American jobs.

    As a matter of utmost urgency the corporate tax needs to be severely reduced or eliminated.

    Of course corporate heads may operate remotely while living in the USA; they may enjoy doing that but corporate taxes make us domestically unprofitable and American jobs held by the working people of America have been lost by the millions, or we become too much of a nation of customer service representatives and burger flippers.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    What is going on? A half-percent margin constitutes a "mandate".

    Ask a businessman what it would take for him to hire more people. Ask him how many people he would hire if government took another 5% of his profits. Ask him how many people he would hire if the government continued to impose regulations on him that made it impossible for him to compete in the world market. Ask him how he can compete for technology dollars when paying 35% of 38% for capital gains when other INDUSTRIAL nations only charge 20% or less.

    It's time to think. It's time to analyze why we have a problem. Taking money out of circulation to satisfy Obama spending "habit" will only increase the problem.

    Obama's ideas about the budget were voted down 100% by a Democrat controlled Senate. Why does everyone think that the Republicans need to change when even the Democrats would not give Obama's plan even a single vote?

    The problem is with Obama, who lost public support big time. His election should be seen for what it was - a complete repudiation of his policies. As Mike said, he lost 14% of his followers.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    I don't even know where to start. Mike Richards -- You look at numbers of House seats when you're talking about Rs and then percentage of people voting when you're talking about Ds. That's apples or oranges. You do realize that Republicans also lost a percentage of their "following" too don't you? Fewer people voted. Cherry pick the worst data for Ds and the best for Rs. That's really rational. Procuradorfiscal -- the super rich are a "powerless minority"? Seriously? I guess those 10's (100's?) of millions they just spent on the last election to buy Romney the office didn't really work out very well, but I wouldn't call them powerless really. But beyond that, Obama hasn't ever said that "soaking the rich" (i.e. going back to the historically low rates they paid during the Clinton years) was all he wanted. He's agreed time and again to cuts. He repeated says "balanced" -- meaning spending cuts and tax increases for the top 2%. Reading these comments will show you how likely it is that Rs will compromise. They think that defending the "powerless" rich from a minor tax increase is a moral issue.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    Procuradorfiscal has made one of the most correct statements ever printed in these comment sections. The left-wing is determined to spend this Country into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this election proves that the majority of the gullible public has fallen for leftist propaganda.

    How can so much of the public be so foolish? Indeed, the call for compromise is nothing more than an acceptance of the idea of welfare statism.

    We cannot capitulate to the effort to destroy the America we know. There can be no compromise with foolishness and idiocy.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    I'm not sure we have enough good people in Congress to achieve anything worthwhile yet. Batten down the hatches.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    I always have to laugh when I hear that rich people will leave the country if we raise their taxes a little bit. There is nowhere else in the developed world in which it's better to be rich than the U.S. Where would they move? They could pay less taxes if they moved to Somalia, or Uganda, or Paraguay, but you really wouldn't want to live there. If they moved anywhere else in the developed world they would pay more in taxes and end up with less money.

  • hubbardesquire Alabaster, Alabama
    Nov. 10, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    If "compromise" is code for give in and let the Democrats destroy this country then, I say, "No way! It is not going to happen! Not now, not ever!"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    Git 'er done, boys

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    Did you know that there were about 500,000 more Democratic votes in House races than Republican votes? The only reason that the House remains in Republican hands is the gerrymandering that followed the 2010 Republican wave. The House, Senate, and Presidency remain divided, but not because this is the will of the people.

    As for taxes, taxes are at the lowest level in at least 50 years. As I recall, the 1950's and 1960's were times of tremendous economic growth that many look back on with wistful nostalgia. At that time, the top income tax rate was 70-90%. I certainly don't advocate returning to that, but it is ridiculous to claim that those who have succeeded to the greatest extent in America don't owe more to their country.

    Obama should just let the sequester kick in, and then have a new round of negotiations with the new Congress in January. Perhaps he will be able to deal with a more rational group then. I don't think that the lack of rational thinking (and ability to do arithmetic) that was evidenced by the right's inability to comprehend polls is limited to polling. It extends to economic matters too.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    Yes, yes and YES!

    But will Boehner and McConnell and the rest of the GOP do it?

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    What needs to happen is defense spending needs to drop by 50% back to what it was in 2002. Then tax rates need to go back up to what they were in 2002.

    Obama had stated in the summer of 2011 that he would agree to cuts in Medicare, Social Security and other "Entitlement Programs" only if Republicans would agree to a 1% tax increase for those making more than $250K a year. Republican leadership were for it until the rank and file found out about the increase and boom, totally against it.

    The current Republican plan is revenue neutral. That doesn't help decrease the deficit at all.

    If taxes return to the level they were when Clinton left office, military spending returned to a level when Clinton left office and we enact some "Entitlement Cuts" the deficit would shrink each year.

    When Clinton left office, the deficit was decreasing. Each year of the Obama presidency, spending has dropped. His first budget had a deficit of 1.8 Trillion. This included the Trillion dollar stimulus. Of which only $200 Billion was spending, the remaining $800 Billion was tax cuts. But remember Republican ads, this failed. Tax cuts failed...

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    I'm inclined to think the Congress should give Obama anything/everything he wants in regards to taxes and budget.

    Let him tax the millionaires all he wants, except if he can't FIND the millionaires because they've left the country, don't be too surprised.

    When consumers wind up paying $20.00 for a loaf of bread - will it be the fault of Fox news, or George Bush?

    I'm afraid consumers are going to have to actually see the results of government trying to spend its way out of debt before they understand.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    Never thought I would say this but maybe we need to "jump off the cliff". We have become a society that is so self-entitled and has lost understanding what "wants versus needs" means that we need a wake up call. When people who have IPhones want to know if certain activities are covered under fee waivers at our schools then we need a wake up call. When our politicians, the same ones who go home and proclaim that the cause of our nation's problems is always the other guy yet they themselves were the ones casting votes in Congress we need a wake up call. When our country is split down the middle with the popular vote but our President claims he has a mandate, and our Speaker of the House says "no tax increases" then we need a wake up call. So bring on the cliff and hope our parachutes save us.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:27 a.m.

    Re: ". . . time to compromise . . . ."

    No, it's not.

    Now that they've won the elections, it's time for action by liberals that actually has a chance of helping the economy recover from 80 years of their deranged politics.

    Soaking the rich has NO chance of helping the economy. It's nothing more than liberal revenge directed at a powerless minority they hope to fleece to buy the votes they need to stay in power. A way for liberals to play Santa Claus to the rubes with other people's money.

    Deep, deep cuts to deranged government overspending on useless, even harmful social programs is the only policy that has, even the slightest chance of helping the economy.

    Of course, liberals have proven time and time again, they have no real intent to help the American economy.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:19 a.m.

    what part of the election are these people not getting? why do we hire these people? the voters spoke clearly there must be a balanced approach that includes increases in revenue and a reduction in the budget.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 10, 2012 12:17 a.m.

    Let's look at the numbers. Republicans lost nine House seats, meaning that their number decreased by 3.8% compared to 2010. It also means that they have 35.5% more control than they had in 2008. Obama lost 14% of his following since 2008. There is no reason for Obama or any other Democrat to demand anything. If Obama wants change, he had better lead the way with concessions.