Democratic officials: Fiscal 'cliff' deal reached

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    Forward over the cliff!!! The House needs to reject this ridiculous deal. They need to cut spending, remove government waste, and get the Feds out of the States' affairs!

    Unless a deal will cut spending by more than it increases taxes, WE NEED TO GO OVER THE CLIFF!!!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 1, 2013 2:38 p.m.


    For the record:

    Obama only had a filibuster-proof majority between Sept 24, 2009 and Feb. 4, 2010.
    Congressional records reflect that the Senate was in session for 72 days during the four months and one week that the Democrats actually had a filibuster-proof majority.

    Obama has submitted budget proposals every year.

    FYI The budget process:

    The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

    Appropriations committees put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    As was mentioned on the Senate floor -- returning to the Clinton Era tax rates would not be a bad thing ---- PROVIDED that we also returned to the Clinton Era spending levels --- But no one wants to do that.

    All I know is when I read that a 'deal' had been struck, I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, like when the dog and the cat finally decide how they are going to eat the chicken. Either way, its bad news for the chicken.

    There's obviously no intention to get spending under control, in spite of what any of our government leaders try to suggest. All of them want more spending. Problem is, they are running out of people from whom they can confiscate the money for the endless parties in Washington. I'm wondering if it really matters any more --- Democrat or Republican, its like the difference between pigs and swine. We've all got to understand that we cannot continue to live as we have been living, we the people need as much fiscal discipline as we are requiring from our government.

    Jan. 1, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Reduce the size of government with no new taxes? Start by reducing the staff of ALL Senators, Congressmen, White House, and every Embassy overseas.

    WHAT do you want cut? Should Hill Air Force Base be cut or do we only want government cuts in other states?

    No new taxes? IF all the George W. Bush tax cuts expired, there would be NO new tax. The result would be taxes would return to where they were before the 2 unfunded wars were started.

    The tax cut AND the 2 unfunded wars are responsible for a big portion of the increased debt.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    "Why is no one demanding that Reid and his Senate at least pass a budget for this year, as required by LAW?"


    Budgets begin in the house. A house controlled by Republicans. The Reps can easily pass any budget they want and then blame the Senate Dems for not passing it.

    Which is exactly what has happened. At least be honest.

    How about this. R and D work together to craft a budget that is passable?

    And worf, budgets should be done every year. One was done in the early years. Since, both sides have played politics, rather than concoct a passable budget.

    The house has not even tried.

  • Keith1943 Spring City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 5:52 a.m.

    However and whatever is done, we've simply got to reduce the size of government - irregardless of party affiliation. We must insist on a "true" balanced budget amendment, with no more tax increases, unless they are offset by tax and/or government decreases. I fear the train of bigger government is moving too fast, and will soon jump the track. It would be refreshing to see our elected officials, do what's necessary for the country, and not their own self-interests.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Jan. 1, 2013 5:29 a.m.

    Last second heroics by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but still "Spending cuts would be deferred." Half-baked castor oil measures do nothing to attack the creeping fiscal cancer where another cliff is lurking, completion of this one will no doubt collide with the pending National Debt Limit cliff. It's a proven fact that there are precious few mountain-climbers in Congress so how are these cliffs ever to be resolved?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 1:02 a.m.

    My, my, we see what a wonderful, comprehensive and bi-partisan solution that was reached by our government representatives (proving to all that they are indeed true statemen) at the last minute between the Congress and the White House, Democrats and Republicans, in the best interest of the country-----NOT!!!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 11:05 p.m.

    A bad deal is worse than no deal. If their "deal" is all taxes and no spending cuts, it is worse for the country, economy and future than no deal ans must be rejected.

    Why is no one demanding that Reid and his Senate at least pass a budget for this year, as required by LAW? Without that, it is hard to identify any changes in our disastrous spending plans, but perhaps that is the intent.

    Focusing on taxes and ignoring spending is a deliberate distraction by the Democrats to deflect attention from the real problem, and where the real solutions MUST be focused.

    To our Congressional delegation, especially Orrin Hatch and Jim Matheson, if there are not significant spending cuts in the "deal" you must vote against it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 31, 2012 10:18 p.m.

    Early in his first term, the President had a democratic majority in both the House, and the Senate.

    He could have passed any budget. He passed no budget.

    Who is to be blamed?