You can bet one thing for sure..... Clifton | Mar 14 | 08:36 AM IF.....IF.....the city of Washington ever gets out the electric business, the people who are paying ...more»
Re: BassMan | Mar 13 | 11:24 AM It is useful to try everything in practice anyway and I like that here it's always possible to find ...more»
Greetings! lviceman | Mar 13 | 02:51 AM I would appreciate more visual materials, to make your blog more attractive, but your writing style ...more»
Biologist Alok Chatterjie | Mar 12 | 05:01 PM This is utterly absurd. Came to America 37 years ago to enjoy the very things that are now less available ...more»
Laws are "Permanent" Mar 12 | 03:51 PM Size limit for Stripped bass keep going up. The initial law was enacted to preserve the spawn size fish. ...more»
Phil Cook | Mar 12 | 02:46 PM I hope that the idiots we've mistakenly elected to run this Country remember this in Nov. I hope the ...more»
Many Thanks... Dennis | Mar 12 | 12:32 PM Thanks to the Beaufort Observer for posting the story. I appreciate the fact that stories from around ...more»
October 27, 2009 Tax policy should be equitable. In our view that means people who are similarly situated should be treated equally. Therefore, special tax treatment for select individuals is inequitable. It is wrong for one group to be given tax breaks that another does not have. In fact, we think our tax policy at the national, state and local levels is riddled with too many loop holes designed to benefit a chosen few.
We also think that there is a real need in this country for campaign finance reform. The idea that a government official would take a larger than typical contribution and then act to benefit the contributor to the exclusion of others similarly situated is wrong and it should be a crime. And we think that even in those cases where a contribution may be completely legitimate the "smell test" should be applied by the recipient. If it looks bad it ought to be returned.
Thus, we think most economic development "incentives" the various entities of government concoct are bad public policy. When an incentive is received by a person or corporation and that same person makes a large contribution to the politician who engineered the incentive we think that nothing more than legalized kickbacks. Recipients of economic development incentives should be prohibited from making political contributions to those associated with the incentives policy and operation.
These "reforms" are needed not only to help prevent corruption but to remove the perception of corruption. It is the appearance of impropriety that causes a problem as much as the fact of impropriety. The end result of the pervasiveness of this practice of "it pays to have connections" is that the masses become jaded about their government. And this perception will surely suffer from what comes out of Raleigh this week (with the Mike Easley hearings).
One of the reasons the tax system works is not so much because of the IRS but because most people believe they should pay their fair share. At least it used to be that way. But when people see special favors going to select individuals or groups they eventually decide that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and they begin to cut corners in paying their taxes. No taxation system is more vulnerable to this than the property tax system, and specifically the personal property tax. The system pretends to be based on honest disclosure but only the really naive believe it to be. When there was a dog tax a lot of dogs didn't get taxed.
We need tax reform at all levels of government. We need campaign finance reform at all levels of government. But we also need honest government officials who are just as concerned about upholding the integrity of government as much as they are about complying with rules and regulations. And integrity is more a matter of perception than anything else. We need more government officials who are willing to forego contributions that don't smell right.
We need both: Better policies and more honest officials who are committed to restoring people's confidence in government.
