After reading the Deseret News article on how Sen. Mike Lee was "forced" to short sale his Alpine home, I remembered why I didn't vote for him ("Sen. Mike Lee forced to sell million-dollar Alpine home," May 21). I thought he didn't have the financial background to deal with the economic issues facing the country. Obviously, he didn't prepare a budget to show how he was going to live on his $174,500 salary as a senator. And if he can't balance his own budget, what makes us think he can manage, let alone balance, the national debt?
Growing up in the '60s and '70s we had a saying, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Why did the country have to bail out financial institutions? Because, in part, they made loans to people like Lee. Maybe it's an ethical question. Do you become a senator and stiff the American public, or keep your day job and pay your debts?
Paul Sommer
Taylorsville
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation of...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: How will...
- My view: One woman's story of redemption...
- Dan Liljenquist: Chaffetz's search for truth...
- In our opinion: Frances B. Monson's...
- George F. Will: President Obama's new...
- Charles Krauthammer: Americans deserve the...
- Letter: The real death panel: Republican...
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
Iron Rod, you are kidding me that Mike Lee will have any empathy for everyday Americans, right? Lee may be the worst Senator in the entire Senate, and his tantrums will make things worse for the middle class, the deficit, and the economy.
@Iron Rod
If you claim to be a budget hawk (which Mike Lee did) than you can't be upset that people call you on losing your house to forclosure. If you advocate smaller gov't you can't short sell your house, because the gov't More..
@ Mike Richards, you seem to be an apologist for Lee. Had this happened to Matheson or Obama, you would surely be screaming about how unfit they are for public office and how they undermine the Constitution. I don't mind principles. I do mind More..