The president's budget

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Buy gold and guns before gold goes to 1000 and there is a limit to owning more than twenty assault rifles.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    April 11, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    The deficit was created by both Republicans and Democrats. One may have created more debt than the other but both are culpable and the debt is enormous.

    Social Security is not a part of the deficit and never has been, yet both parties seem to hanker after robbing the poor retirees to further enrich themselves.

    Why not cut Congressional and Presidential salaries in half? After all they can handle it the way they say seniors will handle further cuts to the value of their monthly payment - by buying cheaper and cheaper products. They can do this far longer than seniors can.

    Abolish the congressional pension plan too; let them depend on Social Security.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    The whole deficit problem was caused by the Bush tax cuts. Decreased revenue. Restoring the tax rate on the top 1% is not going to fix the problem. We need to go back to the Clinton era tax rates, on ALL of us. That means your taxes would go up, back to where they were before the Bush disaster. Remember, the Clinton era? Balanced budgets, peace and prosperity. Something CONservatives Know nothing about.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    April 11, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Ho Hum.... More DN biased bunk. Your Obama hate is showing again.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:27 p.m.

    Republican response: If Obama suggests it, is is clearly evil socialism, even if I wanted the same thing 5 minutes ago.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    BO is 0-4 at the plate with his budgets of the last 4 years and it looks like another swing and a miss this year. The man has no idea how to govern...and America pays the price again and again and again and again...

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    April 10, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Why the heck is this newspaper itself always against Obama? I can see a writer's opinion .. but the paper as a whole? Is that professional journalism?

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    April 10, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    Is it me, or does the DN always seem to use pictures of Obama looking angry to accompany articles about what he's advocating? I've noticed it with gun control, sequestration, cabinet nominations, and now his budget.

  • Daniel Cedar Hills, UT
    April 10, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    This editorial is muddling a number of things:

    (1) You can call the changes to Social Security "minor" but the fact is that this change would make Social Security funding stable for the foreseeable future. It is disingenuous to write an editorial lamenting "entitlement programs that are driving the nation to the brink of insolvency", and then to minimize a significant concession from President Obama that will improve forecasted funding for one of those entitlement programs.

    (2) Social Security is not a major driver of our debt, current or future. The major contributors will be Medicare and Medicaid. Yet the editorial fails to mention that *private* healthcare costs are rising much faster than public programs. Costs rise slower with government healthcare plans because the government can pool together enough people to negotiate lower rates with huge insurance companies. This is why healthcare spending is much lower in other developed countries, for equal or better outcomes. We'd be better off adopting a system similar to other developed countries, rather than this hodgepodge of private and public plans we have now. Bet the DN isn't brave enough to admit that.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 10, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has some choice words for anyone who thinks the only way to improve the economy is to tighten the country's belt.

    “There is no instance of a large economy getting to growth through austerity," Stiglitz said in an interview Tuesday on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”

    Stiglitz said, "Austerity leads the economy to perform more poorly. It leads to more unemployment, lower wages, more inequality.”

    Instead of austerity, the U.S. needs more fiscal stimulus to grow, Stiglitz said. Without President Barack Obama’s stimulus in 2009, the unemployment rate would have reached a high of at least 12 percent, rather than the 10 percent peak it hit in 2012, he added.

    Stiglitz's austerity-doubting claims align with 80 percent of economists who in an IGM Economic Experts panel agreed last year that the 2009 stimulus lowered the unemployment rate.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    Sure Ernest is being overdramatic but the Ryan budget does have tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes on the poor (it's not stated but the amount of tax loopholes he wants to close is so massive that it would affect the poor), increases in defense spending, and massive reductions to programs that help the poor like food stamps and Medicaid.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 10, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    It's sad that the American people re-elected a man who clearly had no interest in governing or leading a nation. A leader makes tough but necessary decisions. A leader doesn't appoint a commission to address a problem (e.g. Simpson Bowles) and then completely ignore their recommendations.
    A leader doesn't take the easy way out and demonize one small segment of the citizenry (the evil rich) and mislead the citizenry into thinking that by punishing that group with higher taxes we can solve all of our financial problems.
    A leader doesn't use people as props (e.g. police, firemen, and grieving parents) as he campaigns to take away constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. That's called a demagogue.
    A true leader would explain to the American people (who aren't stupid) that when interest rates on our debt go up (as they will at some point) and half of all tax revenue goes to debt service then there's not going to be any money for your favorite program whether it's defense, soc security or agricultural subsidies.

    April 10, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    We are simply spending beyond our tax capacity. We can look back over one hundred years of income taxation, and no matter what the specific tax rates, we have never raised more than about twenty percent of GDP. We can't really afford to spend at a higher rate than that.

    The big budget busters are social spending. The democrats are in serious denial about the budget and spending. The balance sheets are not fun to look at, but reality can't be ignored.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Ernest T. Bass
    Your response is stereo-typical left wing overreacting intolerance
    I know of NO republican who believes as you accuse and I have seen no such advocacy from the DN
    You created a phony stereotype merely so you could play put upon
    Passive /aggression is precisely why I abhor left-wing drama – which ironically, pushes me into the arms of the people you claim to despise. I know no conservative who is as wacky as a left-winger typified by your post

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    Of course in the D-news opinion, the only acceptable budget would be zero taxes on the rich, zero social programs, unlimited spending on the military so the US can bomb several dozen poor countries into submission all at one time. Oh yea, and raise taxes on the poor.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 10, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Where does the DN get these figures? The Obama budget, if adopted, would virtually eliminate the deficit by 2030 while making deep cuts in the national debt. Now is not the time, however, to go overboard on reducing public spending unless we want to see another crash.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    "The president's proposed budget, like those he has submitted in recent years, likely isn't going to get much serious attention". So what does the Editorial Board think will get serious attention? Should he cut and and not raise taxes? The Editorial perfectly characterizes the disconnect we have in our political thinking these days. It is one thing to caste dispersions but it is another thing to make a constructive criticism. I liken it to when my wife is cooking something and asks what should be added to make it taste better. If I come out and say "it is no good" you can imagine the reaction. Thank you very much...NOT. Editorial Board for a very thoughtless position paper.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    So, the President presents a budget, which conservatives have been howling for him to do, and everyone hates it, especially conservatives, because it's not mean enough to poor people. Maybe a budget everyone hates should be the one that passes.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    It is amazing that anyone today would quote Marx as a viable economic theory and try to make a valid economic point using him as a respected reference. Marx has been shown over and over again to be mostly wrong about almost everything. All of the systems of the world that have most closely tried to follow him and his theories have themselves more or less given up and started moving to a more capitalistic society - even Cuba is starting to allow people to own property. We may as well state "According to the scientific theory that the Sun revolves around the earth we can assume...." Those on the left should get over the failure of communism and socialism. Our personal freedoms are closely tied to economic freedom - the right to own property without everyone else, including through Government representatives, feeling they have equal right to what you own. Everyone should read Ezra Taft Benson's article "The proper role of government".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    Would the DN prefer Ryan's math which involves getting rid of Obamacare (except he keeps the medicare cuts and all the tax increases in it... as if that's realistic...), and several trillion from getting rid of entirely unspecified (read: would never happen) tax credits?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    The history of our national government over the last several years should offer ample proof that nothing, no legislation, and no budget will even be satisfactory from this president, let alone be ideal.

    But the problem is not with his actions but because of who he is and the attitudes of the people he has to work with.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    DN was never, ever going to be satisfied with an Obama budget deal.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 10, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    So DN tax increases are "piled on top of" previous tax increases (which aren't reallyincreases), and Social Security cuts are "minimal". Ahh, what's in a word? An attitude possibly? Like memoaning the 1.8 trillion dollar deficit reduction as woefully insufficient while failing to mention that this increase is "piled" on top of the all ready agreed upon 2.5 trillion in cuts since 2011 amounting to 4.3 trillion over 10 years the exact amount Republicans have been asking for. The thing the President isn't willing to do is eviscerate social welfare programs like the Republicans want..not going to happen DN.

    The trajectory this budget and the last budget put us on is to reduce the deficit as a portion of GDP from 10% to around 1.7% in 10 years. Will those numbers be reality probably not, who knows but it's an important part of the discussion that somehow failed to make the article. I wonder why..oh yea...Obama did it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 10, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Mr. Obama would tell us anything - except the truth. His plan does not cut the deficit. Any "reduction" is automatically offset by automatic budget increase. There is no "base line" budgeting where an amount is compared to this year's spending. The "base line" he uses is the "projected" spending that automatic increases would allow.

    His insincerity in even trying to balance spending to match income is disingenuous. Those who support his budget proposal are just as disingenuous as he.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 10, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    I guess it's not really a surprise that the DN Editorial has come out against the President's budget plan - the stated reason is that his plan only cut's the deficit by $1.8 trillion over ten years. And the editors' interpretation of what the President means when he says it is not an "ideal plan" conveniently fits into their narrative. But maybe the President said that because it is not ideal for him and his desires but, in fact, tries to meet the opposition half way - something the opposition might consider.

    The tax increases agreed to by the Republicans in December were not tax increaees at all, as the DN knows, but they were a partial return to the tax rates that existed in the 90's, when the economy was fourishing. The intention for those tax cuts to end was claerly laid out in the legislation that created them, agreed to by the Republican President and the Republican Congress. The strong economy in the 90's produced the kind of tax revenue that got us to a balanced budget and until that economy returns, no amount of cost cutting or tax cuts will get us close to balancing the budget.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    That the Deseret News finds Obama's budget abhorant is no surpise. Permit me to take the Deseret News out of its comfort zone to the world of Marxian econometrics. Marx in "Capital" tried to answer a simple question: "in a market system which sees mostly the exchange of equivalents where to do profits come from?" The answer he gave, as a result of exhaustive theorizing was the exploitation of labor, that is employed labor not being compensated completely for the value it creates, engendered by the fact that labor is capable of producing more value than is necessary for its support. What does this have to do with the current debate and the D-News position? Simply this:

    The exploitation of labor makes appropriate and just higher rates of taxes on the wealthy, that is, the owners of capital. If such were taxed at the higher rates of the 50's and 60's there would be no problems with government deficits whatsoever. But this is mighty foreign territory for you so you continue to stick it to labor and defend capital as you have consistantly done since the last century.