Joe, Daren, that op-ed is atrocious. Shouldn’t the newspaper be more skeptical of claims by government officials ? well, I say “more skeptical” as if the paper had shown a modicum of skepticism, which it had not, so let me rephrase: shouldn’t the newspaper be skeptical of claims by government?
As the JLF research staff demonstrated this year and last, in every instance, the counties approaching voters for approval to raise their transfer-tax rates already had more tax revenue on hand to use right now than the tax increases would have raised. They were entirely unnecessary ? and voters intuited as much.
Still, I can’t help pointing out this confusion in blame-casting by the N&O, because I find it amusing (emphasis added):
Orange County recently decided on a transfer tax and — no surprise — voters overwhelmingly defeated it. In all, 17 counties have put the matter on ballots since last fall, and all have failed. The sour economy may have played a role this week, but the same interests that arm-twisted the House and Senate also were active on the local level. The Orange commissioners, for instance, spent $100,000 to tell voters how the tax proceeds would be used for schools and parks. A group backed by real estate associations that opposed the tax spent double that, with $18,000 left over.
Now, if it is so obvious as to be “no surprise” that citizens voted down a tax increase when given the chance, why bother to portray the vote as driven by differing levels of spending? The author seems as eager to skewer Evil Business as he is to rip Greedy Homeowners.
