The first week of February came with the terrible news that, despite campaign promises to the contrary, Greg Graves stated that he will be voting for BRT.
The Daily Herald report is Here.
Does anyone know why?
Any bonding will come at the direct expense of future generations.
If it would be unlawful for an individual to run up a credit card and obligate their neighbor to pay for it (let alone the unborn) – how does it “magically” become lawful for the majority of of the voting populace of Utah County to legitimately delegate that power to Greg Graves?
What about the Golden Rule? If one would not like to be obligated by someone (or, perhaps the County Commission) to the debts of others – why would it be legitimate to act similarly in relation to others?
Even if some of the voting populace is in support of the measure – what of those who do not support it? Are they taxed any less?
Perhaps a reform is in order: only those who vote FOR a tax become obligated to pay it! Then perhaps we would have a system of Government based on “consent”, as the Declaration of Independence states as THE standard for just government.
So, what changed in the mind of Mr. Graves?
At least, in most cases, judges have to publish opinions elucidating valid reasons for the decisions they make. Apparently legislators have a very different incentive structure.