A Little Light Summer Reading

Okay, I know it's not Horcruxes vs. Hallows, but the dilemma over the proposal to allow counties to levy a transfer tax still has me in its thrall.  Well, maybe thrall's a little strong, but I'm still paying attention.  Today's volley is an opinion piece in the Fayetteville Observer by one Lord Vol… by one Tim Kent, Executive Director of NCAR.  It's pretty choice.  In it, he lumps local governments in with mining companies, calls the tax blatantly unfair, and asserts of the proposal's proponents:

They support a local vote on the home tax yet steadfastly oppose allowing citizens to vote on forced annexation and limiting local governments’ authority to condemn private property.  That's hypocrisy."

Of course it's not, because, as we all know, the Eminent Domain issue is one of a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment, not a local referendum.  But hypocrisy is a big word, and most people still understand it, so it's good to roll it out whenever you want.

Oddly, Kent also assures Fayettevillians (I mean that in a denizen-y, rather than a Death Eater, sense) that they will be even more opposed to the idea of the tax than the state's other "likely voters".  Why?  Easy.  "That’s because the unfairness of such a tax would hit home the hardest where you live and work."  But, Tim, don't all the likely voters live and work where they live and work?  I guess the point is that many of them are guaranteed to move, but the majority of people who buy houses plan to move out at some point.  He says it's harder there because they'll be paying for growth they haven't contributed to, but if they move in after the tax is applicable, they're really part of the growth, aren't they?  I appreciate the appeal to their civic pride (is that what that is?), but it's still totally nonsensical.

Be that as it very well may, the really great part of Kent's piece was this:

[A] $1.3 billion surplus exists for fiscal year 2007 — evidence that North Carolina doesn’t have a revenue problem, but rather a spending problem.

Homeowners shouldn’t be targeted to pay for local politicians’ missteps. Simply put, a proposed home tax is a bad idea."

Isn't she a beaut, readers?  Somehow the state surplus emerges as 1) a negative, and 2) some sort of reason why the COUNTIES don't need to levy taxes to pay their own costs.  Hmmm, that's quite the stretch, isn't it?  No matter, tomorrow is another day, and there must be a few more ill-fitting insults to lob.  It's not JK Rowling, but it sure is passing the time.