Automatic budget cuts find few fans among governors, lawmakers, administration officials

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 27, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Lost in DC,

    Making sure I understand you correctly, the republicans let the taxes on the wealthiest one percent of Americans go up a little bit (the group that republicans are most concerned about) and so now for the democrats should agree to whatever the republicans (the minority party in Washington) want? Interesting concept.

    Now lets look at what the republicans want. They want the the poor, and the retired to bear the brunt of all the tax cuts (refer to the budgets the passed in the house). Its funny the republicans always talk about not being the party of the wealthy, but I guess actions speak louder than words.

    Good luck in 2014 republicans, when you lose control of the House to. Oh and by the way I am not a big fan of what the democrats are doing either. I would like to see a recall of every Senator and Congressman regardless of party and start over.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    These automatic budget cuts were created by Barrack Obama---New York Times Feb 24, 2013.

    So the commander is against budget cuts he created, and blaming the Republicans?

    Go figure!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 25, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    Where was the compromise with Solyndra?

    Was the deficit cut in half?

    Are our taxes going up, more then a dime?

    How much tax money spent on the golf game with Tiger Woods?

    How can anyone compromise with the commander?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    "Unless the Republicans are willing to compromise and do a balanced approach, I think it will kick in," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

    The repubs ALREADY DID compromise when they allowed a tax increase. What spending cuts has BO offered in response? NONE

    McCaskill and others of that ilk are such a bunch of partisan-hack liars.

  • MemoFromA Demo SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    I think the strategy of President Obama ought to be to tell Congress that we will go ahead with $85 billion dollars of spending cuts, but the spending cuts will rest on the states of the Senators and Representatives that vote for the cuts. If Hatch and Lee are so brazen as to ignore what it will do to our national economy to cut spending of any amount, then let it be Hill Air Force Base that is closed. Then let it be our school lunch program that is cut. Then let it by our CHIP programs, food stamp programs, federal housing programs, and other help aid programs that are cut in our state.

    So let it be the states of our heartless congressional leaders that take the hit. Then maybe the tea partiers / constitutionalists will come to their senses. Its time we start taxing the living daylights out of the bloated rich Americans that make more money than they need. And its time that we start looking at their savings accounts and net worths and start taxing those assets and savings accounts each year.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    To put the spending cuts in better context, we need to remember that we are, and have been spending over a trillion (with a T) more dollars each year than we bring in in revenue, and have done so each and every year of the Obama administration. In fact, he is the only president in the history of the entire world to have deficit spending even close to this size.
    $85 billion is less than a tenth of the current annual deficit... and only a tiny fraction of the entire annual budget. In reality, by implementing this cut, we will only be slowing the growth rate of the ever expanding deficit and doing basically nothing to reduce the existing deficit, which currently stands at over $16 trillion... a number the average person has hard time even fathoming.
    In reality, to make anything more than just a small dent in the federal deficit, spending will need to be cut on a much larger scale than what is currently making politicians think the sky is falling. It is politically much easier to get votes from giving away money we don't have, than it is to take it away.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 25, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    How much is earmarked for mid east countries?

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    I thought the Republicans wanted this? I thought we HAD to cut spending? It's funny how people talk about spending cuts, but no one really means it.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 24, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    Really?? An 85 billion dollar cut and all this disaster is supposed to happen. The way some are acting about this, you'd think that the entire federal budget was 200 billion. In reality, since the entire federal budget is something like 3.8 trillion dollars, an 85 billion dollar cut in projected growth, which is really what it is, is paper clip money for this bloated government. Certainly the President and Congress can allocate these "cuts" to things not really important. If we are going to lose teachers, police, fireman, air traffic controllers, and lots of military ect. because of 85 billion, makes you wonder just what the other 3 plus trillion is being spent on besides entitlements.