Reader comments
Bennett, Hatch are loaded, but Chaffetz, Bishop not so much

Anonymous | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

How is it that Orrin Hatch can get rich as a Senator?

Anonymous | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

This is the reaso that the people are not heard anymore. The longer they are in congress, the wealthier they become. The more they make, the more they focus on reelection rather than serving the people.

Anonymous | 4:09 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

They generally don't get rich as a member of Congress; they're rich before they even run.

And though I can't stand Rep. Bishop...that's kind of sad, $3,500.00?

Comments continue below

$$$ | 4:11 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

like the romans we will fall!!!

SB | 4:14 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Sounds like those ranges for reporting must be pretty wide.
Bennett was heir to the Bennett Family paint company of Salt Lake, remember the ugly building that sat forever with busted out windows and was an environmental hazard. Not to mention being on the board of The Franklin Company (Day Planners etc.} when they went public about 15 years ago he pulled in a cool 30 mill. in stock that day.
As for Hatch, he's had a piece of every little penny stock deal that's come out of Utah county that's been connected to herbal or vitamin supplements etc. Look at his record for supporting that thriving industry. Can you say conflict of interest? Anybody recall that little land swap deal he put together with Snowbasin ski resort who was trying to build the Trappers Loop Road prior to the Olympics. One of the pieces of land that got swapped happened to be his own, but of course he said he had even forgotten he owned it.
WOW!!!

Anonymous | 4:32 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Whatever they make it is too much. It esd disclosed on the news that they actually work about 2 1/2 days a week in Washington. It was also disclosed that they have big fat expense accounts that also are a drain on taxpayers. Think of all the time they have taken to give away billions of our hard earned money. Quite frankly I am so disgusted with Washington and see no resemblance between our Founding Fathers and these rogues. It's a joke. I hope some of the losers like Chris Dodd, John Kerry and others get their butts kicked in the next election. I feel it coming.

Jean Magann | 4:34 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Now let's think about this. Do you think that not living high on the hog, and making right lifestyle choices could have anything to do with our Utah Senators being financially successful? May I suggest a book for you to read? THE RICHEST MAN IN BABYLON suggests a plan to enrich your purse, Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous.

tristan | 5:24 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Hatch is weathly because of the bribes paid to him by the Heath Insurance companies. $943,000 last year alone. Shame on Mr. Hatch!!! Vote the man out of office! He doesn't work for the people, he works for who can pay him the most.

Blessed are the Poor | 5:32 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Yes, lots of people are pilining on the "rich" as if that's a bad thing these days. But this is still a land of opportunity where people can make their way and if they do well, good for them! I don't begrudge Hatch or bennett for their net worth. They've worked hard over many years in service to our state, and Bennett took risks as a businessman and it payed off. Good for them! Let's not be sucked into the marxist trap the Obama people are laying for our country, that somehow the rich are evil and we all have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, and penalize success.

Story has Wrong Focus | 5:34 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Stop and think about it. Would you really want a "loser" type or "n'er do well" being your Senator or Congressman? How about someone on welfare who really needed the job to eat? Shouldn't we want elected officials who have something to show for themselves?

Joe Moe | 11:05 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

It's common knowledge that members of Congress are generally rich going in, and that they could almost always make more money by staying in the private sector. So enough with the irrational babblings about the average Congressman getting rich by being in Congress.

Keeping our eye one the ball, are our representatives able to identify with the average citizen? Maybe some of them some of the time? Maybe not?

But that is the question to consider when you go to caucus and primaries (it's generally to late if you've waited for the general election).

To Wrong Focus | 11:09 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

You have the right name alright. That's the lamest defense ever for our self-serving congressmen and senators. However, elect someone on welfare, and just like Hatch they'll become a millionaire, too. His net worth is hundreds of times more than when he became a senator--did you have the same growth of net worth in that time? He's on salary, just like you. So, shouldn't we want elected officials who have something to show what they have done for us instead of for themselves?

jamesz | 11:35 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To Anonymous: Current members of Congress are exactly like our founding fathers. Office holders have generally been much wealthier, elite members of society. Many founders thought that only property owners should be able to influence policy, vote etc. Where does this nostalgia about the 'good old days' come from? Perhaps we should all stop commenting and go study some history...

Anonymous | 11:49 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

No, I want the average every day person that has hurt in life, that has life experiences when they go to represent me in congress.

The House of Lords | 12:27 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The Senate. Seniority makes it worse. Hatch and Bennett are Washingtonians, not Utahs.

ok | 5:19 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

This is a surprise, why?

Throw the bums out.

John | 6:07 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Hatch is not really that wealthy. He has a home in Virginia that is modest and has appreciated over 30 years (probably has no mortgage now) to more than 3 times its initial price. But the categories are very broad and tend to exaggerate the worth of many members. If you have a property in the $500K to $1M range that is really just over $500K they give you credit for $1M.

One poster said he wanted average guys in Congress. I want guys that have shown they are achievers in life, guys (or gals) that have shown they can solve problems. Hatch had all of that. He grew up poor, worked his way through school, raised six kids, etc... Because over his life he has made some good investments and accumulated a little for retirement is no reason to criticize him. And if you do you should look in the mirror and ask yourself it your are a hypocrite. Disagreeing with someone politically is one thing, but to criticize them for having money is just the green eyed monster showing in your own eyes.

Dixie Dan | 6:27 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I would love to see their Tithing Settlement statements.

Yes | 6:28 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

and now that no one if running against Bennett we are going to be stuck with this old, do nothing senator for four more years. Gag me with a spoon. Does this figure include the religious book he wrote so the Mormons would vote for him again.

Cynic | 6:35 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Yes, I know they feel my pain.

Anonymous | 6:41 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Here's a suggestion, I'm not joking. We all complain about how members of Congress are wealthy, out of touch with ordinary folks, on the payroll of special interests, highly partisan, etc.

Well...

What if we decided that the US House of Representatives--which the founders wanted to be composed of ordinary citizens who'd serve for a short period and then return to private life--what if we chose, randomly, like we do for jury duty--ordinary people (we'd screen out the mentally incompetant, criminals, people with family or health problems--like jury duty) to serve for two years as a member of the US House of Representatives. No elections, no partisanship, no gaming, no PAC money, only one term. Could we really do any worse than we do now with the creatures that we have currently serving who represent only the monied interests? If we adopted this approach we'd have at least one chamber of the federal gov't in the control of "ordinary" people. Think of it as a form of civic duty like jury duty or the military draft.

Karl | 6:46 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

@Anonymous 11:49

I know some would heartily disagree with me, but here goes....

I do NOT want the average person representing me in Congress. I want an individual with EXCEPTIONAL insight, knowledge of law and history, leadership ability, oratory skills, and character.

I myself don't even fit that bill, nor do the vast majority of people.

Anonymous | 6:56 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

tristan, You should take all of your proof that Sen. Hatch has accepted bribes to the United States Attorney's office so that the Senator can be impeached and convicted of taking bribes. If you have no proof you should be permanently barred from posting on this site.

The point | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

So whats the point? Are the Marxists out there saliviating about more class envy? Yes!
Van Jones: "give them the wealth! Give them the wealth!"

@jamesz | 7:50 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"To Anonymous: Current members of Congress are exactly like our founding fathers"
----------------------

Actually, no they are not. Many of the founding fathers sold all they had to even make the trips to be involved in its creation. Many were destitute and living off the fruits of others. Perhaps you should do some history research yourself.

I agree with Karl | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I don't want a bum off the street repreenting us! But I don't want a Rocky, either.......give me a man of principle who is going to Washington to make a difference and not line his pockets......the salaries of Congress and Senators place them in the top 5% of wage earners today....and I don't hear anyone wanting to fix that......why should they be the highest paid....why not require it of them to take less perhaps to encourage them to leave sooner than to stay forever....time for a revolt and a demand that Wahington take a 33% pay cut!

Anonymous | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

To Karl:

Can anyone really be satisified with what we have now? Really?

Nothing is ever done to fix the myriad problems that we have (should I name them all?) because special interests, money, greeed and partisianship get in the way of any real progress. We are doomed with out current system, financial collapse will occur and, with it, civil war. It matters not to me if the people serving in Congress are "exceptional" if they are crooked, dishonest and self serviing nothing will ever get done. I'd rather have a few honest, reasonably smart average people there who will actually care enough about the greater good and fix the problems.

An aside to my earlier proposal. I'd say the term should be four years, 1/4 replaced each year so there is some experience present.

Exceptional people are not getting the job done--can anyone really disagree with that? Why not give ordinary people a try, we could surely not do any worse.

Sam | 8:31 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

So Mr. Bishop, a school teacher, single wage earning family, put kids through missions and currently in college, is no better than one paycheck away from being homeless? We had better keep re-electing him, or it will be devastating to his family. Better yet, lets find him some speaking engagements around the country and bump his savings (might I say Credit Union shares) up to give him a little bit of security in his young, old age. This makes me feel a bit more kinship with this brother. Go Rob. There's always your Davis county school district pension to fall back on.

Get a Clue | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Hatch has earned most of his wealth from song writing over the last 15 years or so. Bennett's net worth has gone down by about 75% over the last 18 years. Most of us would quit their jobs after 6 months! 4 to 5 days every week in DC and then they fly home for 2 days. Lots of late nights and too many issues with two many people wanting a piece of their time. Their lives are lived for the most part in 15 minute increments as they meet with Utahns and other on issues ranging from public lands to supreme court nominees to health care. Sure they get to do some fun things like go to the White House and meet Bono (he is always in DC :-) but they also give up a lot. Do they make mistakes, yes. Do they get it wrong sometimes, yes. Do we disagree with how they vote, yes. So if you can do better, change out of your PJs, take a shower and shave and go out and meet the delegates...I hear there is a opening on the ballott :-)

Matthew | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

First: Rich does not equal smart or truly "successful"
Second: While in office, their net worth should only grow at a rate that is typical of someone with the net worth at which the took office
Third: In a legal sense, "bribe" requires a quid pro quo. In the vernacular, "bride" means using using money, or other things of value, to influence someone. Most politicians avoid the former while too few avoid the latter.
Fourth: Rep. Bishop has gone up a few notches in my esteem. He has his congressional pension and otherwise doesn't seem to be "seeking after riches." Good for him.

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Anyone in this country can become a millionare with
hard work and disipline. The marxists would rather take a piece of everyone elses pie rather than bake their own.

Re: John | 9:29 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Hatch grew up poor raised six kids etc. before going to The Congress. Do you know what else he did? He defeated the incumbent because "he had been in Washington far too long." I think the incumbent had been there two terms. Pretty laughable when you think about it.

I have no problem with wealthy high-achievers serving in The Congress. I do have a problem with people making a career of it. Term limits now!

I disagree | 9:31 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is nearly the poorest member in Congress"

I don't know, I think Congressman Bishop is doing a pretty good job - I wouldn't rate him as the worst congressman back there...

Mark | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"Second: While in office, their net worth should only grow at a rate that is typical of someone with the net worth at which the took office"

And just who is going to monitor this? You? If some guy or gal gets elected to Congress and the value of his assets increase faster than yours, does that really cause such jealousy and covetousness that you would seriously consider taking away their property? When we put our hands over our hearts and recite the pledge of allegiance do we really mean what we say when we mouth the words "With liberty and justice for all"? How comforting it must be to some to look at a person in Congress with all their weaknesses and problems exposed to the world and think that they, in their obscurity, are so much better.

Luke | 10:19 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

If Senator Hatch is as corrupt as some have suggested then he must be awfully inept to have amassed just $3.2 million in ill gotten gains after over 30 years in the Senate. Disagree with the man all you want but please, spare us from the indignity of your random, thoughtless comments that have no basis in fact or reason.

Revere the Rich | 10:38 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Since the conservatives worship at the altar of the wealthy this info about Hatch should be cause for celebration. Aren't we all happy that he's amassed a fortune while serving us? Hatch is a charming fellow who has made a public job the source of great wealth. You conservative/libertarians should be proud.

Rob | 10:42 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Is Bishop in a lot of debt? Bad with money?

Anonymous | 11:43 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Would be useful for the story to indicate their net worth prior to public service.

Anonymous History... | 12:10 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I am not sure who posted that many sold all they had so they could participate.... where did this come from. While many were not as rich as the loyalist who had a stake in maintaining the status quo, only two were farmers. Most the others were professionals of some kind, bankers, legislators, investors, a few doctors, etc.

It is funny how history changes to suit the argument...

Anonymous | 12:42 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

They are schooling Chaffetz.

Shell shocked | 1:55 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Those in public office have "reassured eachother"that what they are doing is ok., although so much of what legislators do is dishonest, unethical, stupid, etc.
I truly believe that President Obama thought he could change the "atmosphere" of egotistical legislators, dishonesty, corruption, etc.
He has become totally shell shocked at what he has found and for right now, does not know how he can work with these sleezy politicians who are there stamped in the concrete for what seems like forever.
Wish we common folk had more power to get rid of Orrin Hatch and his cronies. Everybody vote and stay involved!

Pagan | 2:56 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

And Utah legislators are against ethics reform.

Hmmmm....

Just another skeptic | 3:30 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I certainly hope that Senators Bennett and Hatch did not line their pockets with money from lobbyists... It seems to me that more of our congressional representatives are serving private versus public interest. I do not believe there is a correlation between wealth and personal righteousness...

Anonymous | 3:56 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Wealth care works for Hatch.

hatch and bishop love government | 4:29 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

They have lived off government for decades but publicly blast it's programs. I would love to see these two work production in the next life or at least start a business.

Term Limits! | 6:42 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

It is past time for Hatch and Bennett to go! They have lost the fire in their bellies and I think they just like hanging out with their buddies more than fighting for all the things they surely will be talking about during their reelection campaigns.

Bennett is flat out liberal regardless of the(R) next to his name.

Time for a fresh canidate who doesn't owe everybody political favors.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.