Comments about ‘My view: Amendment gives flexibility to legislators, not special interests’

Now, before the pro-bloated-government, anti-Sutherland-Institute, anti-conservative, anti-fiscal-sanity, ultimately anti-American naysayers get started, readers should examine this legislation on its merits, not on whether they like or dislike Mr. Mero and his employer.

There is much to recommend a bill that places limits on the deranged spending habits of ethically-challenged legislators beholden to selfish special interests -- particularly the Big Education special interest, whose incessant whine for ever more government bloat is beyond tiresome.

The flexibility provided by this bill to meet emergency conditions, while perhaps a little too easy to overcome, should ease concerns for "unintended consequences." Placing tax relief in third place, behind debt service and an ill-defined "rainy day" fund is also concerning, but is certainly better than what we currently have.

All-in-all, not a bad first step in the direction of sanity.

Tying this ill-conceived legislation proposal to the idea of reining in lobbyists is cynical and deceptive. Don't fall for this baloney, folks.

What is the duty of the State? Is it to tax its citizens for every conceivable program or is it to provide the minimum number of services that are REQUIRED in the State Constitution?

Every level of government has received from the governed, an enumerated list of duties that the governed have asked that level of government to provide. In exchange for those services, the governed have agreed to pay the necessary taxes to fund those duties.

If the government is able to perform its duties below anticipated costs, the money should be returned to the governed.

As private citizens, if we contract with a builder to have something done, we do not pay for costs not associated with the contract. We do not fund the builder's boat or vacations because our project cost less than projected. We expect him to refund the overpayment and he expects to be required to refund the overpayment.

Why does government think it is special? It is not their money. The money belongs to the governed, not to the government.

What this proposal fails to consider is that, in education particularly, the increase in demands has tremendously out-paced the increase in funding. The courts, Congress, the media, and the legislature have added to the job of educating the youth, as has the decline in families, far more than the increases in inflation and population.

Unless we significantly backed off our demands on the education system, we could never continue on merely increases in inflation and population.

@precuradorfiscal

While I agree that one should examine the legislationon its merit, you completely shut people off with your incessant diatribe and name calling. You could have made your argument much more eloquently.

But I agree that special interests have way too much say in our government. that includes Republican and right wing special interests. I wonder how you feel about a pro corporation special interest group that has asked our legislature for $29 million in funding this year? That amount equals an almost 300% increase over last year.

"If we asked 20 special interest groups... to sit around a table, then dumped a pile of cash in the middle of them, they would fight to the political death over every last penny."

The even bigger problem, in my opinion, is when those sitting around the table are Utah legislators and it's the special interest groups dumping the money on the table.