Letter: Default to incumbent

Every elected delegate at my GOP Caucus meeting was either staunchly in favor of Orrin Hatch or significantly leaning that way. Shocked, I wondered how we could listen to the principled GOP platform, then vote against those very principles.

Three erroneous themes "justified" supporting Hatch: seniority, pork and Hatch's justification of his TARP vote (1st bailout).

There may be some value in an experienced senator, but many freshman congressman and senators do just fine. This is a politician's "the sky is falling" fear tactic to let them keep their job. If change is so awful, why have elections so frequently? The argument for seniority puts people ahead of principles.

Is it the responsibility of government to pick winners and losers? Want to stimulate the economy? Eliminate unnecessary regulations, reduce taxes, cut government spending, etc. Picking winners or losers artificially influence the market.

Hatch claimed his TARP vote (1st bailout) prevented an economic meltdown. TARP dragged out the economic meltdown for 3.5 years. Around 417 banks still failed. TARP made every U.S. taxpaying citizen carry the burden of someone else's poor business decisions, and we still felt the ripple effect.

Is it too much to ask that we vet all the candidates based on principles rather than default to the incumbent?

Steve Stringham

Lehi