Concerning many citizens' assertion that somehow substantial monetary accumulation by a presidential candidate is a liability, I would remind people of our first president, George Washington. It is estimated that he was worth $525 million, or about 2 percent of the total U.S. budget in 1789.
Maybe replacing Washington with someone like James Buchanan, a bachelor with few dollars in his pocket, on Mount Rushmore would be logical with this type of reasoning.
Sterling Day
West Valley
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- In our opinion: Utah's caucus system needs...
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- Letters: Move to the center
- My view: UDOT listened, made a good choice
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Richard Davis: Abortion laws should keep up...
Get The Deseret News Everywhere
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- Letters: No welfare, ever
77 - Letters: Move to the center 35
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus... 33
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 32
- Richard Davis: Abortion laws should... 28
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation... 27
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an... 26
- Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem... 21
It isn't about personal wealth. All recent President's and major party opponents have been far better off than the average voter. It's about understanding the challenges of the middle class, caring, and doing something to help. When a More..
The amount of money a candidate has makes no difference to me. The way that candidate made his money does. People should research how private equity works. It is really nothing like textbook capitalism.
Just a couple of comments regarding this letter. Washington's $525M in net worth was not 2% of the national budget. His salary - whatever that was - was 2% of the national budget. Washington had vast holdings in farmland (about 8000 acres) More..