Comments about ‘Readers' forum: Keep Hatch forever?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Vaughn J
Kearns, UT

This country faces enormous challenges in the near future. Hatch is in a position to affect the necessary changes now. if you have a problem about how he is dOing then make your opinion know. If Liljenquist is elected he will be th 98th Senator in the pecking order. His vote will count as 1% of votes in the senate, so unless their is a close vote it will haveinimal effect during the next six years. Hatch will have significant clout, because of his to e in service, thus being able to direct legislation, not just being a fly in the ointment a another conservative Junior Utah Senator has done in the past year.

Liljenquist cares about government, not the public. His pension reforms were directed to to eliminate potential liabilities to the state, not for the individual's who serve the public.

swede1952
Smithfield, UT

Maybe, if we finally discover the Fountain of Youth, Orrin Hatch could be declared "Senator maximus por eterno", or Senator for life! That should send most founding fathers "spinning in their graves"! Why concern ourselves with this old Constitution, anyway? It's outdated, no longer relevant, it ain't hip! Let's let politicians serve for as long as they desire! If it was good for the old Roman empire, . . . should be good for us, too!

"Look at the Emperor's new clothes, aren't they exquisite?" "New clothes? I don't see any new clothes. The Emperor is naked." "Naked, oh, you're so wrong. Those new clothes are splendid!" Fellow Utahns, do you get the drift? Don't let fantasy obscure the reality that is ahead. Do something NOW to make the future better for subsequent generations.

"It's time, for Dan!"

Ninjutsu
Sandy, UT

A "moderate" is exactly what we need.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Debbie Larsen: Good letter. The fact that Sen. Hatch has done good things in the past doesn't mean that we should give him a pass on other things. He used to support the Constitution. But now sometimes he thinks he knows better. When he has voted for big-government programs that are outside the limits of the Constitution, he has contributed to our country's massive debt. And he doesn't apologize for those votes.

I too have voted for Hatch in the past, but it's become harder over the years. He has become arrogant, and thinks we can't make it without him. He has taken too much credit unto himself. He has cast too many wrong votes, and has become part of the problem in Washington. He is no longer the best choice. Not even close.

On the other hand
Spanish Fork, UT

This may come as news to some, but Utahns as a whole are significantly more moderate than the powers that be in the Utah Republican Party. I appreciate that Orrin Hatch understands that, and I only wish he didn't feel the need to kowtow to the extreme elements of his party when elections roll around. This fall, I'll be voting for Scott Howell, a moderate whose views (both during election season and afterward) align more closely with the average Utahn than with the far right.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Moderate and liberal policies are what have caused this nation's massive debt. The Constitution embodies the founders' vision of a very limited federal government, with only a few specific responsibilities. Most things were intended to be done by the states and communities. But today it is backwards, and most of the power is instead in Washington.

When our leaders compromise on Constitutional principles and stray from the limited-government model, that's what leads to massive debt, loss of accountability, and erosion of freedom. Sen. Hatch has contributed significantly to these problems. "Moderates" (i.e., additional compromise on Constitutional principles) are NOT what we need in order to reduce government and return our nation to fiscal sanity. Moderates are an integral part of the PROBLEM.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

"Moderate and liberal policies are what have caused this nation's massive debt."

False.

The massive debt occurred under a repub president and congress.

Massive tax cuts and defense spending in the form of not one but TWO unfunded wars. Subsidies to oil companies making already record profits. And handouts to prescription drug companies in the form of Medicare part D.

If those aren't repub policies then I don't know what is.

When was the last time we had a repub President who actually was "conservative?"

Even Reagan massively expanded government, handed out freebees to the private sector, and increased debt.

Basically, Bush did the complete opposite of what Mr. Keynes taught. He overspent during good times so once the bad times hit, we were already in great debt. Should have saved, shouldn't have gone to two wars, shouldn't have cut taxes, shouldn't have passed Medicare part D, shouldn't have given out subsidies to every oil company and their dog.

DougS
Oakley, UT

Maverick - you must be an Democrat, or at least an Obama supporter. You ignore the facts than it has been democratically majority congressional acts which created entitlement programs and then grossly expanded them under the guise of "war on poverty". I agree with those who abhor compromise (moderate view) and embrace constitutional solutions (radical to you and most left leaning liberals). Hatch is, and always has been, a Moderate and therefore should be retired.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Since Reagan, Republicans have consistently cut revenues and raised the debt. This is, of course, mad, but how do you stop them? Not in Utah.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Please Maverick. Moderates and liberals have an argument, but don't base it on fantasy such as the big debt was under Repubs. Mr. Obama has raised the debt and and championed bigger unbalanced budgets from day one. Paul Krugman brags about the deficit and complains that it isn't enough. Keep the discussion real.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Hemlock, if you are interested in the truth, Google the Wall Street Journal's article "Obama Spending Spree Never Happened." Or try "Policy Differences Under Two Presidents."

Go ahead. Try it.

Mr. Bean
Salt Lake City, UT

@Vaughn J: "If Liljenquist is elected he will be th 98th Senator in the pecking order."

He has to start somewhere. Hatch can't live forever.

"His vote will count as 1% of votes in the senate..."

Um, how perceptive. Each of the senators counts 1% of the votes in the Senate... since there are 100 senators.

"Liljenquist cares about government, not the public."

Hatch cares about sitting in his office drawing an obscene salary.

Miss Piggie
Salt Lake City, UT

@The Real Maverick: "False. The massive debt occurred under a repub president and congress."

False. Obama added more to the national debt than all the presidents combined.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Maverick,
according to the treasurydirect webpage:
from 1/19/01 to 1/19/07, when bush had a repub congress, gross federal debt (GFD) increased $2.9 trillion, or $491 billion per year.

From 1/19/07 to 1/18/09, when bush had a dem congress, GFD increased $1.95 trillion, or $977 billion per year, over TWICE what he averaged with a repub congress

from 1/19/09 to 1/19/11, when BO had a dem congress, GFD increased $3.4 trillion, or $1.7 trillion per year.

from 1/19/11 to 1/19/12, when the rpubs had only the house but dems had the senate and WH, GFD increased $1.18 trillion

The numbers do not lie - GFD increases MORE when dems have more control.

Irony Guy,
revenues INCREASED under Reagan.

to comment

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