Utah governor uses colorful language to describe sequestration

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 2, 2013 12:39 a.m.

    @Truthseeker: "Most Democrats aren't oppposed [sic] to spending cuts--the issue is timing."

    They don't seem to mind the poor timing of higher tax rates, new mandates, and burdensome regulations.

    "If only we could go back to the Clinton era..."

    You know what we had in the Clinton era? A Congress that produced an annual budget. Let's start with that. The Senate under Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in four years, although they are required to by law. It's time for them to do their jobs.

    "Bottom line, the economy is still weak...."

    Stimulus spending does nothing to increase prosperity. Here's why: because the government has to remove money from the economy before it can put it back in. The ripple effect of a dollar spent by the government is cancelled out by the negative ripple effect of having taxed that dollar out of someone's pocket in the first place.

    Why send our money on a round trip through Washington? Why not just leave it where it does the most good? Do you think they know better than we do how to spend our money?

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:19 p.m.

    @I Choose Freedom "politicians continue to run around screaming that the world is about to end as we know it. A bunch of liars."

    The resulting sequestration is far worse than you are depicting.

    Companies will sometimes scare their divisions about a possible liquidation of the firm asking everyone to tighten their belts. Those that comply save the company money. Other divisions though will start grabbing all the limited resources they can get. If the company continues to lose revenue and has poor leaders that don't know how to find the cheating divisions, they may just cut across the board.

    The divisions that have already cut to the bone will be cut to oblivion. Without a good leader the firm will not survive. A good leader is needed to cut from the fat divisions.

    The FDA doesn't have enough meat inspectors today. Tomorrow good meat may not be available for sale and may rot.
    The NPS and the USPS are finally self funding as they are no longer forced to give their revenue to the general fund. Yet they will be forced to cut, when they are already lean.

    Not a bunch of liars rather stupid leaders.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    March 1, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt "Republicans 2000-2008: Let's spend like there is no tomorrow. Trillions on 2 wars, 700 billion for banks, Trillion unfunded mandate Medicare Part D, unpaid for stimulus packages."

    These may have added to the national debt (not part of the sequestration debate), therefore the interest payments can be argued as part of the deficit.

    The real problem is that GNP is down from 2000-2008, government revenue is down, therefore spending should go down proportionately to have a balanced budget. This argument is about the deficit, not the debt.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    March 1, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    All you fiscal hawks that voted for Romney, he was on the record as saying he would ADD 2 TRILLION on top of Department of Defense budget request for defense. He is no fiscal conservative just like GW Bush and his UNFUNDED Federal mandates. 2 TRILLION, look it up.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    March 1, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    When I was a Republican the thing I disliked most was UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES. Obama spends but let's slook at unfunded mandates from GW Bush that he left for Obama.

    Medicaid Part D, NOT PAID FOR, will cost 8 trillion according to the COngressional Budget Office.

    Stimulus packages and tax cuts: UNPAID FOR and still causing revenue shortfall and not sparking economic growth.

    2 WARS: UNPAID FOR costing roughly 3 TRILLION. You Republicans think war is free for some reason.

  • Doogie South Jordan, Utah
    March 1, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    Again, they are all just blowing smoke, politics as usual in Washington. This is not even a cut, it is a cut in the increase in the budget. So what they are telling us is that they can't even run the country on last year's budget (ha what budget?) deficit and are crying that the sequester is cutting into the increases for this year. Washington DC is boom town USA and they aren't living in reality but they sure as heck are stealing our tax dollars to line their pockets. It is disgusting really. Why don't we send them all home and make them earn an honest day's wage for a change like the rest of us? Their spendthrift ways are STEALING my retirement and standard of living as well as everyone else who is in the middle class in this country.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 1, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    Most Democrats aren't oppposed to spending cuts--the issue is timing.

    If only we could go back to the Clinton era with a booming economy and tax increases which resulted in a lowering of the deficit. Imagine where we would be today if Bush hadn't implemented 2 tax cuts, 2 wars and a sweetheart deal to pharmaceutical companies in the form of a prescription drug plan. Instead, we could've used the budget surplus to stabilize Social Security or Medicare--or pay down the debt.

    Bottom line, the economy is still weak, employment is still weak. Cutting people's pay through furloughs or laying off teachers etc. is going to reduce demand (lower paycheck=less money to spend). Less demand, less hiring, more layoffs etc. All we have to do is look at the EU and see how austerity is working there. It isn't.

    My guess is that Eric Cantor, representing VA, a state which relies a lot on military spending is going to start feeling some heat when the cuts begin to be implemented. Perhaps he will be more willing to compromise?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 1, 2013 4:51 p.m.


    Using the correct terms, can you see that if this year's deficit is the same as last year's, it puts us a trillion dollars deeper in debt? And that if the deficit is "only" $433 billion in 2016, we will still be going deeper in debt?

    Do you not see anything wrong with this?

    I can't lend my support to any political party that finds this acceptable, Republican or Democrat.

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    March 1, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    What about the rest of us who have lost over 20% of our income since the disaster of 08? Suddenly some gov. employees lose a day of work, and they make it sound like the sky is falling. Tough! The government has never offered to bail out my small business, and guess what? They shouldn't, and I wouldn't let them anyway. I took on this responsibility and I have accountability to no one other than myself for making it work. Why do employees get an entitlement attitude that someone owes them more? Everyone should have to work on a farm or in a service based business at some time in their lives to understand the hard work it really takes to make a living in America!

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    March 1, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    What I think happened, is all that unfunded stuff got added in when Bush 43 left office. People forget he was an MBA, not an attorney. I'm sure he knew how to get wars and programs, not to mention contracts with Halliburton funded and have it look good. But they were still there and had to be paid. It has to be like getting a payday loan, sooner or later it comes due, and people either have to pay on it, get another one, or pay some of it and get another loan to pay some more debts. And it keeps on going. Just a thought. Another thought is that maybe we should not elect MBAs.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    March 1, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    Really silly use of the English language! I'm sure you can do much better Governor. Not impressive AT ALL! I'm certain you could have gotten your message across much better without resorting to the inane expressions used. Just stick to the subject at hand and the facts. That will suffice nicely. Thanks.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 1, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    Turn on cable news and you'll hear the words "deficit" and "debt" used interchangeably as if they're the same thing. Not too long ago, Sean Hannity ran a segment in which he aired a clip of the president discussing in his State of the Union address how his proposals won't "add a single dime" to the deficit. Then, with a satisfied gotcha! tone, Hannity illustrated how the debt -- the debt, not the deficit -- has increased by $5.86 trillion since Obama took office. Therefore the president must be lying about the deficit.

    The final Bush administration budget bill authorized spending for 2009, creating a deficit of $1.2 trillion by the time President Obama was sworn in. An additional $200 billion was added by Obama by the end of that year, creating a total of a $1.4 trillion deficit. From that high water mark, the deficit has steadily decreased to a projected $845 billion by the end of 2013. The CBO projects that by the end of 2016, the deficit will have dropped to $433 billion, for a total of nearly a trillion dollars in deficit reduction in six years.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    March 1, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    Let's put the “sequester” in the context of an average American family. The median annual income for an American family is $50,502. If that family spent $73,417 last year and had an accumulated credit card balance of $322,205, that family would look like America. Clearly, that family is headed toward disaster financially, and so too is America. Sequester isn't so bold that it would ask this family to live within its $50,502 means; sequester asks only that the family reduce its spending from $73,417 last year to $71,655 this year.

    And yet politicians continue to run around screaming that the world is about to end as we know it.

    A bunch of liars. That’s what they are. And they are spending us blind. Wonder who is profiting from all of their excessive spending? They are, of course. And you and I and our posterity for generations to come will pay for it.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 1, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    One factor in the equation is that are entitled will vote for the person who is giving the aid package that election. Who will continue to push for federal money to be pumped into each district. In 1972, when the federal government changed the funding process to have partnerships with cities, counties, and states, it became a different ballgame and now all those entities crawl and beg for the redistribution monies except for the earmarks that are a separate issue. Those depend again, on who is in power.

    Lobbyists became a significant factor for the organizations of counties, cities and state type groups.

    Now we will see what the next month or more for the furloughs to take place and the process that each agency will use to equitably send home employees for their 114 hours.

  • washcomom Beaverton, OR
    March 1, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    Politicians, in general, are spend-aholics. They do not know the meaning of a budget. As the Governor said, you can't spend more than you take in, and you can't expect to borrow money and delay the repayments forever.
    This is also a good warning for every single one of us. Know how to manage money. Don't spend beyond your means. Know how you are going to pay off borrowed money. Create plans for the future, and seize the day!

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    March 1, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    point fingers all you want but the real debt is the wars never, where, in any budget, at anytime. so every dollar is in the red that was spent on the wars. the only people that did well, got tax breaks at the same time. the weapons industry, energy, food, and the top 1% got more wealth while sending more jobs over seas, and hiding money in other countries, that could have been here to loan to start new companies. the food industry makes the packages smaller and charges the same, so they can make even more money while the smaller package costs more then the bigger one did. oil industry will not build enough refinneries for the fuel thus kepping prices at record levels. these are not secret just read the newspaper. look at things in the store . i follow the oil market and when there is a lot of fuel on the market prices stay high. capitalism runs this country not the people. so why do we feel bad for the rich paying more? they are making way more. and not making jobs at all.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    March 1, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Truthseeker: the article to which you refer is grossly oversimplified and skewed to make a point -- which is unfortunate because his point is valid.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    March 1, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    2007 was the last time the GOP controlled the House & Senate. The budget they passed was $2.7 trillion with a deficit of $161 billion.

    2013 budget is $3.8 trillion and the deficit will be $901 billion.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 1, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Barack predictably comes out today and tries to blame sequestration on the GOP. The man waits til the last minute and then tries to throw in some more big tax increases and then claims its the GOP's fault when they won't take the bait. Nice try Barack. This man doesn't understand the meaning of CUT anything. TAX MORE and SPEND MORE ... that's it folks. End of story for Barack. We need an adult in the White House.

  • athought Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    I am partially in agreement with cuts. The federal employees make an insanely huge salary compared to anyone else in basically the same position. Example, a former employee went to work for the feds doing the same job she did here, but at 3x the salary. One of my co-workers said his wife, who works for the feds, would go on a fulough with this, and lose $700 a month. She's still making a 6 figure salary, but it will hurt them because they've adjusted their lifestyle to equal their salary. While I agree with cuts and furloughs, I'm hoping this will also carry over to the leaders -- from the top down? Just think how much a month would be put toward this if everyone in congress, senate, president, etc. was just cut even 2%. Like that would ever happen, right???? It's too bad no one back in DC can figure out they are there working for us and our (the country's) best interest, and not for their profit and putting money into their pockets and the pockets of friends. Us who are working for a salary allowing us to get by are the ones suffering.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    March 1, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    liberal ted; I really liked your article, just curious, how long do you think it would take to straighten out this mess with the figures you used?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 1, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    If the economy were fully recovered, the U.S. could absorb the cuts. But the economy hasn't fully recovered and these cuts risk pushing us into another recession. We have already cut discretionary spending, the real longterm threat is Medicare and Social Security.

    Medical costs and the way we deliver healthcare in this country are insane. Everybody should read Steven Brill's lengthy and in-depth article in Time magazine this week "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us," if for no other reason than to become better informed.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    March 1, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Way too colorful for me. I'm offended. It would have been much more appropriate had our esteemed governor used words like rump, hiney, fanny or tush. Please governor, a little more decorum in the future. :)

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    March 1, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Both sides love to strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, if they can make people fear that the world will end if the other side gets their way, then they can stay in power.

    The right makes you think that our national defense will crumble if we cut 1% of the defense budget.

    The left makes you think that people will be dying on the streets in droves if we cut 1% of our welfare budget.

    Both sides are a joke.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    I believe our highest State of Utah government official should not bend his convictions, morals and words to that level. That is exactly what Obama wants people to feel like when a person doesn't agree with his level of tactics. However, for a person from Utah County and representing all citizens of Utah, that is really not appropriate to make in public which will be used to show his stature and level at which he stooped.

    This President for over 5 years with campaigning in 2007-2008 and as President has used tactics that are less than honorable. He is saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling and used those types of processes 100s of times in his now 5th year as running our federal government. The Governor can take $13M from our state's money that was there due to TARP and federal bailout monies for an out of state contractor but can't take this action and type of philosophy from the Federal elected leader.

    Our leaders should show more concern in how they state things. He has been back in Washington, D.C., and that is hard but a couple of days should not cause these words.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    It is so nice of the governor to step up and blame the feds. This state has been recipient of fed funds for decades because we cannot balance our budget.

    Senator Hatch recently signed on with another pork barrel special in Washington yet we shake our heads and tsk at the feds. Hatch is the fed, nobody has been there longer and assisted in the growth of the debt as much as Hatch.

    Utah keeps sending him back hoping he will do something different...doesn't seem to be working but maybe this time will be different.....

    Governor Herbert could grow the state, develop the gas resources in the east part of the sstate, build pipelines or railroad that would provide income and jobs for Utahns but it is easier to get in front of reporters and shake his head and blame the feds.

    Come on governor!!!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 1, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    @J.J.J.H.S "I am now an independent...."

    Welcome to the club. I left the Republican Party in the early 2000's, when they controlled the presidency and both houses, and were spending money like drunks. It seemed inconceivable then that anyone would come along and spend money even faster. Yet here we are today.

    Your former party may need to be prodded in the direction of fiscal sanity, even if it has to come from the outside. It may help them to know they have lost someone as loyal as you were.

    "We all spent it, we will all share the pain when the cuts come."

    Our children and grand-children will also share the pain, when our bill comes due.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 6:54 a.m.

    It's simple to cut the budget. When you think of $3.6 Trillion compared to $86 Billion, suddenly the sequester is a drop in the bucket. If they really wanted to not shut down American jobs, warships etc. Then stop giving away money to other countries. That alone would save anyone here in the United States from suffering from a sequester. Very simple.

    But, that cut is not enough. We'll need to continue to cut 1-2% from the budget every year until the budget is balanced. Then we need to cut it another 5%, and use those savings to payoff the principal of our debt. Since we are mostly just servicing the interest on the debt right now.

    Once the debt is paid off, then we'll build up a savings equivelant to what we spend in a year. Then we give a 4% tax break, and continue to add 1% to our surplus every year. We'll also set very strict guidlines, that has to have 3/4 of the American voters support to touch that surplus.

    See how easy? But then again I'm not beholden to special interest groups.

    March 1, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    This all reminds me of the Prop 13 scares in California, official's all said the world as we know it was going to end. Guess what it didn't and it won't now.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    March 1, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    I'm all for cuts in budget, even if it were to result in the loss of my job, I'd be looking for a new one, but a cut like this hurts all the wrong people. Government jobs that are being furloughed aren't the folks getting filthy rich off the public trust.

    How would you like it if you came into work one day and said, "Company's decided everyone is getting a 20% pay cut. Has nothing to do with the way you do your job, and we could've fixed things, but we just decided not to, so we're going to make you guys pay for the company for a while. Oh and we're exempt from these cuts, because we've decided we get a pay raise and are essential."

    These federal employees do their jobs, they perform important services that either should be fully funded or cut back in systematic and sensible ways. The problem is that our federal leadership has failed to lead.

    They are irresponsible children, passing the buck. They refuse to make important decisions, and cannot stomach compromise for fear it might threaten their electability.

  • germanygator Apo, AE
    March 1, 2013 3:57 a.m.

    Hey JohnJacob--

    Obama, in 3 years, more than doubled the deficit that Bush took 8 to create. Your comments are terribly one-sided. Obama is no saint. He is spending us into oblivion.

  • CP Tooele, UT
    March 1, 2013 2:40 a.m.

    After reading the governor's message, I agree with him. I think the Federal Government is over stepping it's boundaries on many things. I think our governor is doing great and doing a much better job then the other one this state had who he replaced.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2013 12:34 a.m.

    "What scares him about real budget cuts (even pitifully small ones like this) is that his party loses control when people aren't dependent upon them."

    Uh... Democrats are fine with the defense spending cuts and as for the rest... they're just going to wait it out and let complaints from the public demand that some of that spending get restored, then blame Republicans for getting in the way of it. Polling shows that given three unlabeled (didn't mention who proposed it just what the details were) options for avoiding the sequestor the most popular one ended up being the plan put forth by the Progressive Caucus. Second most popular was Senate Democrats and in last... the House Republican plan. Polling also shows that 31% of people blame Obama and 49% of people blame Republicans for this (11% both and the other 9% neither or undecided).

    Democrats see this as a lesson, that people may say they want a balanced budget but this sequester is 1/10th of what would be needed for that. Do people really want a balanced budget or did they underestimate what it would take to get there?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 11:49 p.m.

    Are we so dependent on the Federal Government that a 2% cut in the budget is really going to crate chaos in this country? I don't think so, but Obama would like to make everyone think that. What scares him about real budget cuts (even pitifully small ones like this) is that his party loses control when people aren't dependent upon them.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    "We have nothing to worry about here in Utah!" said TeaPublican... of Houston... Texas.

  • CA. reader Rocklin, CA
    Feb. 28, 2013 11:31 p.m.

    You folks are so busy pointing fingers that you miss the point of the governor's statement. Whoever is in charge in Washington needs to learn to spend less than is taken in. Why is that so hard to understand? Forget the finger-pointing and get on your elected rep on a regular basis.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Feb. 28, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    I can think of even stronger words.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    Feb. 28, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    Republicans 2000-2008: Let's spend like there is no tomorrow. Trillions on 2 wars, 700 billion for banks, Trillion unfunded mandate Medicare Part D, unpaid for stimulus packages.


    Republicans 2013: Don't cut spending on the things WE WANT!!!

    I am now an independent and I recall being shouted down as unpatriotic when GW Bush was running up the nations credit card. We all spent it, we will all share the pain when the cuts come. Take your own medicine GOP.

  • TeaPublican Houston, TX
    Feb. 28, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Don't let that guy obama’s scare tactics get to you! Our fellow Republicans and FoxNews all say that obama is just using scare tactics to get people upset about the sequester and that the cuts are going to be proportionally small! They are RIGHT! These are small cuts and we will all come out of this for the better. We have nothing to worry about here in Utah! Just move along folks, there’s nothing to see here!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    The Fed needs to stop handing out cash to all the States and let them raise taxes to pay for roads, teachers, police, etc. The GOP here in Utah has been spending more than we take in as well but they've got federal dollars to support their fix. Going to be interesting to see how popular the Governor is when he either starts increasing class room sizes, cutting state employees or raising taxes.