So....Utahs elected representatives didn't vote in lockstep with party
leadership, whats wrong with that?It only shows that Utahs
delegation is less likely to "go along to get along", and I for one am
glad they voted the way they did."Compromise" was possible
about 13 trillion ago. Not any more. The debt is out of control.Utahs representatives are LEADERS, not followers.
Another week, another column from two self-described lobbyists angry that the
unwashed masses take part in the political process. Yawn. Webb and Piganelli
would have a much better argument if they could tell us what the
"mainstream" Republicans, the "moderates" have accomplished.
Yes, they passed a bill to prevent immediate default, but it only delays the
problem. The so-called 'cuts' won by Republicans are cuts to proposed
increases, and will still leave us with increasing debt. Balance the budget,
nothing less. And no, Congress should not need an amendment to the Constitution
to DO ITS JOB.
Fortunately there were enough 'compromisers' willing to raise the debt to insane
highs. Otherwise our credit rating might of been lowered.
With Hatch and Matheson I am pretty sure they pretty much sway with what will
get them elected. With our young guns,Lee and Chaffets,I do believe they voted
based on principle AND promises to the people who elected them. I agree
with the writers of this article re the art of compromise under normal
circumstances. These are not normal times. We,as a country are on the
brink of becoming just another European like country and many do not see the
benefit in becoming ordinary rather than exceptional. I for one am not willing
to compromise the exceptionalism of my country for the mundane, so kudos to
those who know when to compromise and when not to. Thank you Utah Young Guns!
So what did the compromise accomplish. What was the dread and threat, if the
debt ceiling did not raise? Not default, the country had sufficient revenues to
pay its interest payments on the debt. What was to be avoided at all costs? The
reason for the urgency? It was to avoid down grading of the Nation's credit
rating. How did that work out with the compromise? IT DIDN'T!!! The credit
rating was down graded anyway. This is because the problem is not the debt
ceiling; it is the DEBT. What about the so-called "balanced approach"
to add more taxes for the rich. Well if you tax all earnings (wages) above
$250,000 at 100%, the country still is spending $800 billion dollars a year more
than it takes in. The problem is spending, which needs to be cut by at least 10
trillion dollars over the next ten years to avoid additional debt ceiling raises
above the now approved 16.6 trillion dollars through 2013. No responsible, sane
person can or should compromise on reducing this burden on our future. This
debt more than any external or internal foe threatens the demise of our great
@HelloooThere was the other issue. Yes we could pay interest but
we'd have to cut 40% of spending to stay solvent. That means furloughing
millions of federal employees or delaying or reducing medicare and social
security payments, or defense contracts... you know... crippling spending cuts.
The kinds that Republicans want to put on the American people with the balanced
budget amendment since they refuse to consider tax increases.
To Hellooo | 11:34 a.m. Aug. 7, 2011 if you read the S&P
explanation, you will see that the problem was not the debt, it was the lack of
cooperation among the members of congress cocerning this issue. Isn other
words, the debt rating was lowered because the tea party extremists wren't
willing to pay the debts already incurred by Congress, and their willingness to
send the credit of the United States down the toilet just so they could get
their way. Put the blame where it belongs.
My oursider view Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb, Utah delegation shuns
compromise, fears tea party?. LOL. And now, another GOP/Tea Party "Romance
Report", brought to you by, none other then, The Koch Brothers and Grover
Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams" called "Ethanol
Subsidies" Entitlements. It remains to be seen whether other Republican
presidential candidates follow Pawlenty's lead and come out against ethanol
subsidies. Gingrich still supports these subsidies, which he has since first
supporting legislation that President Ronald Reagan signed into law, Mitt
Romney, for instance, wrote in his book No Apology that he supports ethanol
subsidies. They opposed Vice President Gore's plan to "tax" the sugar
industry in Florida. When spending the money of others, discretionary power
corrupts. We then see resources going to corporate welfare projects like Senator
Bob Dole's ethanol subsidies for Archer Daniels Midland and to the Clintons'
friends who wanted to handle travel arrangements for the White House press
corps. With a constituency in place, "subsidies" harden into
"entitlements". Expanding government entitlements for the rich
ultimately hurts the poor and debases the moral quality of Utah's politicians. I
watch Hatch and Lee, they'll say anything and put blinders on you, to get
Mr. Webb's characterization of our Republican representatives and senators as
behaving in a was that was "silly" is right on. Their action was
without any potential benefit for the country and was not a matter of principle
but a matter of personal political benefit only. Three cheers from me for Jim
Well the USA was down graded to AA+ despite the compromise. Are Utah congressmen
(except Matheson) scared of the Tea Party or, of Utah voters who are tired of
the decades of reckless spending that led to this financial crisis in the first
place? According to polls, Americans have caught on to the insanity, it is not
just the Tea Party who thinks it's ridiculous.
The deal to cut the debt and raise the debt ceiling didn't go nearly far enough.
Complaining about the bickering, arguing and lack of compromise (meaning the
Republicans should have caved to the Democrats and made even fewer cuts and
raised taxes in a recession) is a distraction from the root of the problem. By
the way, if they increase taxes to increase revenues, does anybody really
believe that they will not find a way to continue to increase spending even
beyond current levels? The problem is the debt...Jefferson placed "economy
among the first and most important of public republican virtues, and public debt
as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." Neither party has the guts
to make the DEEP cuts that are needed. It will only be a short while until the
call to raise the ceiling to avoid a crisis comes again. Depending which party
has the power the opposition will stand firmly against it while the others will
be in favor of it. Both parties have a serious spending problem! Even with the
arguing, our rating would not have been downgraded if they had cut 10 times as
much. Greece here we come
Raising the debt ceiling was needed to pay for bills already ran up. Like the
costs of the wars that were unpaid for. Orrin Hatch has been in washington to 30
years. For 30 years our debt has been increasing. Now Orrin is looking to blame
someone else. Hatch voted 8 times to raise the debt limit during Bush's drunkin
spending spree, but voted against Bill Clinton on evereything while Clinton was
able to balance the budget, no thanks to republicans. Hatch is what is wrong
with washington. He is as big of a flipflopper as Mitt Romney. He will say or do
anything to get elected. Trouble is, this pretty great state will replace him
with someone like Mike Lee. Crazy people have no place in washington. We need a
balanced approach, and compromise to solve our problems. Remember just 10 yrs
ago we had a balanced budget and surpluss, without cutting social security, or
medicaid. It can be done, but not the way the far rightwing crazies want to do
it. On the backs of the poor, and whats left of the middle class. Tax the
"Job creators" who arent creating jobs.
Thanks goes out to the Utah delegation. Excepting Matheson, we have a very
reasonable group representing the interests of our state and the country.Who would be against curbing the big government spendathon in Washington? I
guess quite a few brain dead citizens do.
Wow, I don't know that I've seen Piagnelli & Webb article more out of touch
with both Utah voters and actual facts before.What on earth was
"silly" about saying "Hey, the sky isn't falling. We continue to
receive Federal tax revenue well in excess of our non-negotiable obligations
every month. Let's *not* get another $2 trillion credit card we can't pay back
and force ourselves to make some thoughtful discretionary spending decisions for
the next few months instead."?It will be interesting to see how
this plays out politically, but given how close Philpot came to beating Matheson
last election I'd see this as a major blunder on Matheson's part. A vote for
unnecessarily increasing the debt limit is simply indefensible. We didn't need
to do it to service the current debt. We didn't need to do it to pay people's
previous investments in Social Security. We didn't need to do it to protect our
American servicemen overseas. There was simply no compelling reason other than
"discretionary spending is no fun to examine". Period.As
Rand Paul rejoindered to McCain's charge that those standing on principle in
this vote were "Hobbits", "Hobbits" were the sensible
They were "safe" votes for all four Republicans. The margin of victory
in the measure in both houses was assured. They all stood on principle. This
isn't a hard puzzle to piece together.
To learn more about the real reasons for debt increases in the last ten years,
everyone should Google up "Policy Changes Under Two Presidents."It's very enlightening.