The Locker Room’s Paul Chesser two interesting posts on North Carolina’s “classic” temporary taxes:

This is a classic example of how temporary taxes work,” commented Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. “A temporary tax increase is advocated in order to address some crisis. But throwing more money at the problem means that there is no incentive to really fix the root causes of the crisis – spending goes up and pushes the crisis into the next budget cycle. Every so-called temporary increase adds fuel to the fire and virtually guarantees another temporary tax increase will be needed when the last one expires……

Norquist added, “Gov. Easley has deceived his constituents by presenting his tax increases as temporary. He now wants to impose a third round of temporary increases, proving that this new higher rate of taxing and spending will be the norm in the state. After fours years in office, Gov. Easley has not reformed government to make future tax increases unnecessary; instead he has worked consistently to sneak higher taxes past the families and businesses of North Carolina.”

So now we’re presented with the land transfer tax option. Some argue that this is totally legitimate because it will have to be approved by voters and that realtors who’ve “intimidated” legislators while opposing it are being anti-democratic. But it’s not honestly being sold to voters by supporters who say the tax will help keep property taxes down. There are a lot of us out there who simply don’t see it the way government spends money.

If you do, get a little insight from Sen. Kay Hagan, who just now figured out great ideas like a lottery to fund education don’t always work out as planned:

“It sounded ridiculous to me when I first heard it, too,” Hagan said of the notion that the lottery could raise more money by letting it put more toward prizes. “I have since been convinced there is a difference.”

Yeah, voters might approve the option tax, claiming that that when they first heard about it, they thought it ridiculous that property taxes would keep going up. They’ll more than likely find themselves convinced there was indeed a difference in the way it was presented and the way it worked out.