What will it take to get a sensible budget and put the economy on a path to recovery?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 8, 2013 8:02 p.m.

    I love the nauseating, and fully factless claims so often reiterated here.

    Foe example, quit often we here the boasting of many that Utah runs with a balanced budget... very True. What they fail to mention is that Utah has a growing debt balance, that is growing by the minute. In fact, as a percent of state GDP, Utah ranks right in the middle of other states as far as debt ratio to GDP. In fact, Utah has a debt ratio per capita 50% higher then North Carolina. And that Utah (10.2%) actually has more people on food stamps - per capita - then California (9.7%). (source - wall street journal)

    Another example - at the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. Currently there are 2,619,051 full time federal full time employees. Under Obama, the federal government employes nearly a half million less employees - than under Reagan.

    The narrative being told is just a distortion. If conservatives really were fiscal hawks, the numbers would show it.... but they just don't support the story being told.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    March 7, 2013 9:11 p.m.


    "That will be off-set by the government hiring about a million employees to manage Obamacare. What would you suppose their wages would be with the White House calligrapher pulling in about $96K?"

    I'm putting in for an Obamacare-related job with the IRS... I'll be collecting the penalty... er, tax from those who don't bother to buy health insurance. I think the starting salary is just under $100K.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 7, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to revere the Constitution and the First Amendment spend so much effort abusing that freedom by repeating outright lies.

    Death panels?



    Not an American citizen?

    C'mon. There is something out there called TRUTH. Why be so afraid of it?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 7, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    "People may be shocked to hear this but if the US adopted a single payer healthcare program like France, UK, Germany and Canada, the budget would decrease by nearly $1 Trillion per year."

    Under single-payer such as Obamacare, the death panel provision would kick in. Obama said it best when he advised seniors who needed major medical attention to just 'go home and take a pain pill.' That's where the savings come from.

    "The problem with going to a single payer program? The loss of approximately 1 Million insurance company employees."

    That will be off-set by the government hiring about a million employees to manage Obamacare. What would you suppose their wages would be with the White House calligrapher pulling in about $96K?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 7, 2013 1:22 p.m.


    Justice Roberts ruled that ObamaCare is a tax. He said that Congress has the authority to levy taxes; however, because the tax was not yet in effect, the Court could not rule whether that tax was Constitutional because damages could not yet be proven.

    As to your assertion that SS, Medicare and ObamaCare are not transfers of wealth, would you please explain how a private individual can receive money from the federal treasury for his personal use that was paid by another individual and not have that transfer of money labeled as a transfer of wealth? Unlike defense spending where ALL the people are benefited, SS, Medicare and Obamacare takes from one person and gives to another.

    If you carefully read the Supreme Law of the Land, you'll see for yourself that Congress is only authorized to tax us for seventeen duties. Everything else is to be handled by the States or by the people.

    Your assertion that Republicans want senior citizens to be homeless is false and misleading; however, it seems that you want somebody else to pay the personal expenses of private citizens. That authority is not found in the Constitution.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 7, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    To "Makid" unfortunatly we didn't get what was proposed in the 1990's, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately what we got was worse.

    The original CBO report put the ACA at $900 billion, the latest estimate has it at $2.6 Trillion. Medicare part D did the same thing.

    Be glad we didn't get universal care back in the 1990's, we would be in worse financial conditions than we currently are.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 7, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    The answer to the question: “What will it take to get a sensible budget and put the economy on a path to recovery”, is very simple. All we have to do is get the influence and interference of business out of government.

    Although it has never been tried before, our founding documents allude to the possibility of government of the people by the people for the people.

    To start, dispel the notion that people are cattle, placed upon this earth for the purpose of creating wealth for some special people. Using the guide “all men are created equal”, stop allowing unscrupulous groups to place themselves above the rest by what they do, what they believe, their color of skin, the clothes they wear or the kind of work they do.

    The fact is that all men, all people, are not created equal, and we probably can’t ever make that perfectly true. But we can work toward that goal, to the betterment of all.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 7, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    But Eric, we need to INCREASE military spending.

    North Korea is gonna drop a big Boooooooomb on us. Mushroom cloud type.

    Kim Jong Un says so . . . . .

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 7, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Sorry, but the problem is not entitlements. We spend more on defense than the next twelve countries. We could cut defense spending in half, and we'd still spend more on defense than any other nation. That's where the waste is.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    March 7, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare (ACA) have all been ruled as Constitutional by the Supreme Court. That means that no matter how much you dislike them, they are still Constitutional.

    None of these programs are a "Transfer of Wealth" as many claim. Taxes are not a "Transfer of Wealth" either.

    What amazes me is that so many people who vote Republican vote against their self interests. They vote for tax cuts for the rich, tax increases on the poor and middle class. Subsidies for Oil and Gas companies and a bloated military budget.

    If Republicans in Congress had their way, Senior Citizens would be homeless unless they work until they are dead, which would be sooner as no insurance company would insure them.

    The poor would turn to crime to feed, clothe and house their family since their taxes would go up and no breaks for the poor.

    The middle class would continue to shrink as the poor grow larger in number.

    The rich would continue to gain wealth and demand the poor pay more taxes to cover increase police patrol to cut down the crime.

    People need to read about things and not just listen to pundits.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 7, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    The budget will never be balanced when the mission of the President is to make people think that their "blessings" come from Washington. Obama spends his time "campaigning". His message has always been that we need to look to Washington for all solutions.

    We've had ObamaCare long enough to see that it is just another transfer-of-wealth scheme. It is a tax that will take our money and enrich the few at the expense of the masses.

    The budget should focus on those duties that are authorized by the Constitution. Every item should be measured against those enumerated duties. Anything not on that list must be phased out. That means Social Security, Medicare, and ObamaCare must be turned over to the States or to the people. Those programs are not authorized duties of the Federal Government - and they are the programs that are "busting" the budget.

    Obama does not follow the Constitution. Most of the members of Congress do not follow the Constitution. Most of the people of the United States don't have a clue about the Constitution, so nothing will be accomplished to fix the problem with the current Administration.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 7, 2013 6:45 a.m.

    I'm always amused by everyone who points to Social Security as our biggest problem with deficit spending. If we decided to do away with Social Security today - just stop paying it out - wouldn't it seem appropriate to stop collecting Social Security Tax? So last year, in 2012, the government took in $840 billion in Social Security Tax Revenue and paid out $785 Billion. So the simple math tells me that if we did away with Social Security now the budget deficit would actually grow by $55 billion.

    Yes, I know, the big worry is about what will happen after all of us baby boomers retire and the output far exceeds the input. So lets do something about that and stop claiming that Social Security is causing the record deficits we are now experiencing. It's just not true.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    March 7, 2013 6:09 a.m.

    People may be shocked to hear this but if the US adopted a single payer healthcare program like France, UK, Germany and Canada, the budget would decrease by nearly $1 Trillion per year.

    This was the estimate by the CBO in the late `90's. You can only imagine it saving even more now.

    The problem with going to a single payer program? The loss of approximately 1 Million insurance company employees.

    A move such as this would bring the US Healthcare system into the top 5 in the world. Medical costs would shrink as hospitals and Dr. offices don't have to hire people to deal with the various insurance companies. All costs would be the same for all tests and medications would be cheaper.

    The scary part of all this: It is estimated that the Government would need to hire less than 1,000 employees to handle the new program.

    Why hasn't this happened yet? Congress, particularly Republicans, need to protect their corporate sponsors. If either party was serious about debt reduction, going single payer would be the easiest and fastest way to drop the debt.

    A single line change in Medicare would do it. Remove 65 and older.

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 6, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    States like Minnesota have been rewriting benefits to unions, union contracts, and entitlement spending. Other states like California are going bankrupt over this same issue of entitlement spending. Our nation is going bankrupt over entitlement spending (not unfunded wars, or tax cuts, or other nonsense blather coming from the left). It is entitlement spending.

    Medicare, medicaid, social security. If Obama was half a leader he could put some effort into reforming these programs and putting our country back on track. Instead, he plays golf, he campaigns, and he blames. His latest budget failed to gain a single vote, even from democrats.

    He proposed the sequester and now tries to place the blame on Republicans. He has the ability to soften the impact of reduced federal spending, but instead wants to have maximum impact and pain through the sequester to get what he wants. Its always about what Obama wants, rather than what is best for the country.

    History will not be kind to this president.

    Foolish Americans voted for this man. We could have done so much better!

  • George Bronx, NY
    March 6, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    What will it take?leaving behind the entrenchment demonstrated above.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    March 6, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    What it will take is the abandonment of left-wing welfare statism. We cannot no longer afford to hand out tax dollars to those who refuse to work to provide for themselves.

    We can no longer afford to cater to a large segment of the population which feels that it is entitled to have its every want and need provided by the government, simply because it exists. All persons must work to provide for themselves and if they will not work, they will not eat.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    Mitch McConnell was misquoted above. What he actually said was, "There can be no sensible budget passed while Obama is President because we won't let him. We are dedicated to making him a one-term President."

    Uh, Mr. McConnell, did you hear about what happened last November?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 6, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    It seems clear that people love their pet government programs. I do think there are some that should be cut permanently. They are outdated and no longer necessary. (Affirmative action and PBS for example)

    Medical research grants are grossly graft filled. We have more medical treatments than we can afford to use, so why try to find more expensive treatments. Temporarily we should suspend all government funding of medical research. Let the extremely profitable pharmaceutical companies fund their own research. The last part should be permanent.

    Speaking of medical care, public health care should be for the health of the general public. If it is not a threat to the general public, government shouldn't control it or treat it.

    For those government programs which are essential, perhaps a less painful course would be to just freeze the funding until the budget is balanced. Then no one can cry over the cuts when there are no cuts. (except that liberals say that lack of increase = cut)

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 6, 2013 4:59 p.m.

    What will it take to get a sensible budget? Well I will refer to the words of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell a couple years ago when he matter of fact-ly stated that "there could no sensible budget as long as Barack Obama was president". I think anyone paying even casual attention has seen what demagogue Obama is. By the way the definition of a demagogue is "a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the less-educated people of a population in order to gain power". So it is painfully clear Barack has zero interest in actually governing - only campaigning and polarizing in order to gain political advantage. Everything the man does is carefully calculated against his radical ideology and quest of power retention with no regard for actually helping or leading this country. A leader must actually take responsibility for things and Obama wants no part of that role. Our "blamer and chief" will never change - he can't change because the man has never led anything in his life - never governed and is simply incapable of changing. It is Obama vs America until 2016.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 6, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    The economy will improve rapidly when Obama leaves office, not until.