Comments about ‘Letter: How many terms?’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 8 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

If Sen. Hatch is not re-elected, then Sen. Mike Crapo will be the likely chairman (of the Senate Finance Committee), and he's more conservative than Hatch. So I think Hatch's potential chairmanship should be a non-issue, or maybe should even be a point against him. This time, there are better alternatives than Hatch.

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

When Hatch was a senior member of powerful committees in the majority he did not address key issues like immigration, banking reform and medicare or social security. Yet, now he claims he's ready to do so. What's he been doing in D.C. all these years?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Yes, Peanut, there are much better alternatives to Hatch.

Let's vote for Pete Ashdown if we want to really improve Utah's Senate representation.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Senators cannot serve forever on the same committee. Senator Hatch served on the judiciary committee as long as allowed by the rules.

"Traditionally, the majority party member with the greatest seniority on a particular committee serves as its chairman. When the Republican party gained the majority in 1995, it altered its conference rules to allow Republicans on individual committees to vote by secret ballot for their committee's chairman, irrespective of that member's seniority. This adjustment was a logical consequence of the party's larger decision to place a six-year term limit on the service of its chairmen or, when in the minority, its ranking members."

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: One old man: In your comments, you keep pushing for Ashdown, which is fine. But your comment is not relevant to this letter. The current discussion is who should be the Republican nominee for the senate. After the April 21 convention or the June primary - whichever it comes down to - then the Ashdown question becomes more relevant to the Hatch/non-Hatch issue. I happen to think that Liljenquist or Herrod would be good Republican alternatives to Senator Hatch.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I checked out Hatch's net worth as of 2011, and I would say that (at just under $4 millions) he has had too much tenure. When he says that the poor are not taxed enough, as he did recently) I think he is not a compassionate or a sympathetic figure serving others but a rich man who despises the poor. I seem to recall he was not a millionaire when he started out in politics.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: one old man Ogden, UT

Let's be realistic. Hatch will win the GOP nomination to run for his current Senate seat. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.

With Obama in the White House and gas hitting $5 a gallon or more this summer Pete Ashdown won't do any better than Peter Corroon did in our last election for Governor.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Now he wants us to send him back so that he can better serve Utah as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. How long will this last?
David Parker
Bountiful
==============

It won’t happen at all if the GOP doesn’t win the Senate Majority in November.
[Which most likely will not happen]

Don’t be duped, again...and again...and again...times 7.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Gildas,
Let's see if YOU are you going to be consitent. I doubt it.

If Hatch's net worth being over $4 millions in 2011 disqualifies HIM for office... Is Obama also disqualified for office by your rule?

Remember, President Obama's stated family income to the IRS the first year he was in the White House was over $5 Millions.

So... if 4 Million disqualifies Hatch for office... does it likewise disqualify Obama for office???

Or do Democrats have some sort of immunity agreement in your rule?

What about Senator Kerry and his wealthy wife? Disqualified? Or does it only work for Hatch?

What about when Al Gore ran for President. HIS net worth is over $100 millions... did that disqualify him for your vote? Or does this game only work against rich Republicans?

Nancy Pelosi's net worth is above $35 Millions... is she disqualified from office like Hatch?

Just wondernig if you are consistent... or if this game can only be used to disqualify Republicans.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

@ 2 bits

Of course it works for everyone!

And where did you get the quaint idea I support Democrats?

Let's clarify some things:

About 70% of Congressmen are millionaires and I would expect that many of these became so
by being career politicians. Every penny of congressional salaries come from the taxpayer.

Hatch is so obnoxious because after "earning" so much from his 36 year senatorial career he has the neck to criticize poor income tax payers (51 percent of us) for not paying any income tax. I expect that's because we earn less than our basic exemptions in most cases, a sad reflection as to where those who keep voting for raising debt ceilings have got us.

I support a Republican for President (Ron Paul)not a Democrat; I do not presently support any Democrat for any office, nor do I automatically support any Republican candidate.

Just for the record: I also discovered that Senator Mike Lee (R) has a net worth of only about $16,000 and Representative Rob Bishop(R) about $20,000. Rep Chaffetz (R) has closer to half a million dollars in net assets and Rep Matheson (D) close to a million.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Gildas,

Being poor doesn't qualify a candidate for Senate any more than having wealth qualifies a candidate. Candidate net worth is irrelevant. You don't have to be poor to run for Senate.

This whole clase warfare rhtoric angle is bogus. The point I was trying to make is... Having a Net worth over $4 million does NOT disqualify ANYBODY (including Hatch) for Senate. Using your class warfare attack of "He's rich"... is bogus even if you are a Ron Paul supporter. It's just as bogus when Ron Paul supporters use it against Hatch as when Democrats use class warfare tactics to vilify other Americans (for being too successfull).

$4 Million isn't a super-high net worth for a guy with his profile, and his long career at his age. I wouldn't assume it all came from his Senate Salary. He's also published books, music, started businesses, invested, etc, all his life. I know many people his age who are worth a few million. So if $$ disqualifies people for service... a LOT of people are not qualified for Senate by your class warfare rules.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

@ 2 bits

I'm an open-minded person whether you realize it or not. I've even "liked" two or three of your recent comments. I don't want this to become a matter of winning an argument.

You mistook me once with little consideration, nevertheless I will try to respond to your other misunderstandings revealed in your most recent response:

I dislike Hacth on the basis of his record, on the basis of his going back on his word, his hypocritical attack on his predecessor whom he criticized for having been a three-term senator. I dislike Hatch on the basis of his voting with the Democrats almost half of the time. I dislike and disapprove Hatch for voting half of the time to raise the debt ceiling.

So far as his "earnings" go I still see him as having made a lot of money for stiffing the people, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. He has made, if I have my figures right, from $98K to $175K since he took office, congressional salaried being automatically raised by cola adjustments every year. Taking the average of those two sums, about $135K, he has been enriched thereby, by $4.86 millons

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

The notion of "class struggle" was misapplied, 2 bits.

The receipt of public money,first of all, is in a category all of its own.
I care not how wealthy or poor a man is; it's how he obtains what he has.
I have shown that he has obtained more than his current net worth from the
taxpayers.

Mr Hatch may have been altruistic at first, but he has made himself rich
at the public expense, in part by pretending to be a fiscal conservative, then has acted irresponsibly in practice, increasing the debt
that the people must pay off, and thereby, by putting the nation on an insecure
financial footing, undermining the security of the nation.

Nevertheless I would add that being on an economic par with most of the people,
most of us struggling to make our bills, is more likely to produce a sympathetic
congressman (House or Senate) rather than one part of an elite, contemptuous of the
common man, as Hatch indubitably was when saying the poor were
not taxed enough which is both arrogant and unjust.

Hatch is not a humble recipient of his public largesse; he seems to have a sense of entitlement.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Gildas,
If you "care not how wealthy or poor a man is"... Why bring up a man's net worth? Obviously you care how wealthy he is or you wouldn't have brought networth up.

Also bogus to assume everything he has came from his Senate salary. Most Senators had jobs before office and would have jobs (maybe even earning more than they do in the Senate) if they were not in office.

How do you know his whole net worth came from tax_payers (his senate pay check)? That's an assumption. I know he has other interests and many investements. He owns part of a vatamin supliment company (because that came up as a conflict of interest at one time). I know he is an author and sells his books. He writes and sells music. How do you know where his $$ comes from... and why is it important?

I just think that basing any decision on a man's net worth is bogus.
And it doesn't matter if some of it came from his Senate salary... he works hard... I don't begrudge him getting paid a Senate salary.

kibitzer
Magna, UT

2 bits:

I think I have one post left on this thread.

You have impressed me as a person who judges rashly.

My response was enough to explain my position vis a vis the
undesirability of Hatch being re-elected to a reasonable
person of average intelligence.

I have explained also why the millions Hatch has taken from the taxpayer,
in his salary alone, by false pretences of being fiscally conservative,
is odious.

I have explained why having less makes one less likely to be part of
an elite contemptuous of the people, as Congress has become, and
why it is different
to have earned money honestly than to have arrogantly
snatched it, under false pretences,
from the public purse. You seem not to wish to understand.

Wealth is only beneficial when earned honestly and voluntarily applied to
assist others.

Sadly it is commonly the case that:

"because they are rich they despise the poor".

This was shown clearly in Hatch's infamous
statement that the poor needed to be taxed more.

May we never forget it while this man remains
in public office.

kibitzer
Magna, UT

My husband wishes to apologize that in his last post
on this thread I had not logged off
and he had not logged on and so his post appears under my handle.
We share the same computers and both contribute to the
Deseret News forums though I don't much.
He would've written this himself but he says he didn't wish to
take advantage of having created an extra post for himself
so to say on this thread I mean. He had had his four
posts on one topic so couldn't fairly add a fifth to be strict.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments