A party divided

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    We have just learned that the Sandy relief bill was loaded with pork of all kinds. MUCH of it will go directly to four or five RED states. According to an article in Forbes, it had wide bi-partisan support because it was a way to ensure that certain Republican fiscal hawks would not try a filibuster. In other words, the pork was a way of buying their votes.

    Then there were all but one of Utah's Congressional delegation who voted against the bill, but only because they knew it would pass and their NO vote would be regarded by gullible Utah Tea Party types as some sort of victory.

    What needs to happen is for news media nationwide to ferret out and expose the full list of which Congressional districts received this pork, which legislators sponsored the pork, and exactly who will benefit from it.

    Only when our news media or someone else makes that kind of information available will Congress finally be held accountable. As it stands now, they know that they can continue to hide their sleazy shenanigans and hypocrisy.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    The tea party far right is the problem. They talk trash and hate and have no plan except ruin the economy. Time to be quiet until the next election and stop mean spirited whining.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    I loved Abraham Lincoln.

    Imagine a Republican more concerned of UNITING America,
    that he actully picked a Southern Democrat as V.P. for his 2nd term.

    Republicans today go on a puritan witch hunt every nomination,
    let alone picking someone "moderate" enough to get them elected.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    @ migraine

    What an interesting fairy tale. Why would the current congress care about covering for Bush admin. He is out of office, has been for four years, can't run again.

    The real reason the democrats and republicans signed on for the Budget Control Act (BCA), or more recently called the fiscal cliff, is because they could not find any middle ground and they were out of time on the debt ceiling, so they kicked the can down the road in dealing with the real issue, the deficit spending from a grossly out of balance budget. Each required the other side to give up stuff they really didn't want to, and each side thought they would get a real plan during the interim, that dealt with the debt and got them what they wanted. Democrats want tax rate increases and defense cuts. Republicans want spending cuts other than defense and tax loopholes closed.

    Another little fact is that the current president still has our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan yet he did not put one dollar in his budget proposal to fund those military actions. I guess he just planned to use the credit card to China.

  • migraine Indianapolis, IN
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    Republicans created these artificial "expiration dates" to hide the true deficit-spending costs back at the time they passed the Bush tax cuts. They used similar gimmicks to keep their wars' costs off-budget. Now that their expiration dates have arrived, Reps are somehow shocked and astonished at the resulting chaos. Lucky for them, the public seems to have short-term memory problems and has failed to hold them accountable. Makes me chuckle every time I hear a Republican congressman profess fiscal responsibility and a commitment to cutting the deficit - these are the exact same people that have been telling us for 10 years that their own deficit spending (tax cuts, federal spending increases, and unfunded wars) was somehow a good thing.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    Ultra Bob,

    Sometimes the Representative may wish to pretend that he doesn't know the will of the people of his state. Sometimes the Senator may wish to pretend that he doesn't know what his state stands for, but when Utah is the most conservative state in the union, it shouldn't be hard for a Representative or a Senator to know the wishes of the people or of the state.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    Mike, you left out the most important part. How does the representative know what the wishes of all the people of his stare ARE? How does he know if the wishes change for different subjects?

    I don’t think that’s the way the founding fathers of America wanted it to work.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Agreed, Mike. You are correct when you write: "When each elected official understands and then does his duty, we will have a government OF THE PEOPLE. Until then, we will continue to have a government where royalty rules and the people are ignored."

    So why, then, is the GOP so intent upon making sure the 1% rules and ordinary Americans are ignored? And even more puzzling is the question of why Americans keep re-electing them?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    When people are not held accountable for their voting record, i.e. Hatch, then we will continue to have irresponsible government.

    Even Matheson voted NO. Is it just possible that he FINALLY realizes that he represents the PEOPLE of the entire State of Utah? What's wrong with Hatch? Which State does he think that he represents?

    A Representative is reponsible to vote for the wishes of all the people of his state. He has no authority to vote "his conscience". He is not there representing himself.

    A Senator is responsible to vote for the interests of his state. He is not their to vote his conscience.

    When each elected official understands and then does his duty, we will have a government OF THE PEOPLE. Until then, we will continue to have a government where royalty rules and the people are ignored.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    If we want only two opinions represented in Congress, why bother with electing all those other people? Just elect one republican and one democrat.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Once upon a time, there was a difference between political parties both in principle and in approach to a problem.

    We now have "rinos", "republicats", "progressive republicans", "liberal republicans", "tea party republicans" et al. A vote for a "republican" is now a "crap shoot" as to what you will elect for representation.

    If one stands for a principle they are called "extremist"
    When the party puts out a platform it is intended to appeal to all for the sake of getting candidates elected.. But, no candidate is expected to follow it! Nor do they.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    As a party, Republicans don't want to cut spending any more than the Democrats do. The fiscal cliff deal was theater -- an attempt to preserve the illusion that there is still a party of limited government.

    Sure, there are individuals from both parties who are serious about controlling the spending. You can count them on one hand. Truth tellers are not easily elected.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Not only did Barack Obama win re-election, but he also managed to divide the Republican party.


    The letter writer gives President Obama uncanny super-powers!
    Imagine one mortal man being able to control the mind and will of 150 million people who hate his guts?

    Who needs a military of 1 million men/women and Trillions of $$$ of aircraft cariiers, Bombers, Fighters, tanks, and helicopters when we have someone with which astounding powers?

    Perhaps in reality -- Republicans have done this TO themselves, BY themselves.

    But that would mean taking personal accountability and owning responsibility.
    I guess it's easier to make up stories and Conspiracies for failure rather than growing up, assessing reality, and learning from it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Republican way or no way. That's part of the problem.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Sir, all that happened was the process was broken in half..the massive budget cuts still have to be dealt with in the next two months. The sequestar looms. It didn't go away.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Mr. Carabine,
    Your party has divided itself. No one is forcing your primaries to elect bullheaded extremists that are unable to work well with others. And the conservative solution to our deficit needs to include something more than "block everything the Democrats do and create gridlock in Washington".

    I don't think conservatives have any real clue about how to get our spending in line. Do you know precisely what you want to cut? How much it will save? What the secondary consequences will be? Are you willing to risk losing elections by cutting popular entitlement spending that contributes to most of our debt? Considering you think defense cuts are off the table and Romney wanted to increase military spending beyond even what the Pentagon wanted, I would say the answer to these questions is "no".

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Had Republicans blocked the bill, income tax rates would have increased on all Americans.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Or could the real problem be the fact that Republicans -- like Reagan, Bush and Bush and their friends in Congress -- are actually responsible for at least 50% of our fiscal problems?

    It's much easier to try to assign blame than it is to find good solutions.