Editorials
Held hostage
Members of the Raeford City Council voted properly on a tough
question last week when they decided to fine the House of Raeford
$30,000 for past sewer discharge violations.
Despite a year of warnings, some, apparently including House of
Raeford officials, were surprised that council members were able to
put aside veiled threats of plant shutdowns and other personal
pressures to vote unanimously in favor of levying the fine.
In reaction to the move, a House of Raeford spokesman said the
firm planned to correct its discharge problems and be within city
and state regulations by the end of March.
Although the firm is working with the city to solve the problem,
the state is making the solution more difficult by imposing harsh
regulations on the plant, the spokesman said.
The picture painted by the spokesman is that the House of
Raeford has been spending its resources to keep 950 employees
working during these tough economic times, and has been seeking,
at the same time, a compromise solution with the state to the
discharge problem.
However, officials from the state Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development (NRCD) have not been in
the mood to give.
In the meantime, city council members have been tossed between
preserving existing jobs and opening the door for future employ
ment, and the residents of Hoke County have been held hostage.
According to a recent letter to the city from NRCD's en
vironmental management chief, until the council corrects the pro
blem with the House of Raeford, a ban on new industry here will
continue and municipal taxpayers will be subject to heavy fines
which could go as high as $10,000 per day.
Last week the council let both the state and the House of Raeford
know that the city was serious about ending the squabble and get
ting on with future industrial development here.
With the improving interest rates and signs of economic recovery
on the horizon, the council's action was well timed.
Under these apparent brighter conditions, many firms are begin
ning to resume selved plans for expansions and new plant sites.
Although the cloud of a moratorium, which has hovered here for
the past several years, has been bad, its effects have been eased
because few firms were looking around for sites.
It would be a tragedy for Hoke County to remain under the in
dustrial expansion ban now that there is a chance for garnering new
employers.
Here's hoping the turkey plant is able to complete the work on a
pre-treatment system by the March date.
In the past the firm may have had some legitimate arguments for
delaying the construction of a pre-treatment facility.
To continue to thwart the laws would serve little purpose now for
the firm, and it would be indefensible to knock Hoke County out of
contention for a new industry because of a lingering struggle of wills
between the House of Raeford and the state.
Afraid of the public
It is unfortunate when officials elected by the public apparently
find it more comfortable to conduct their business in private and
away from scrutiny of their constituents.
Members of the Hoke County Board of Education have rarely
missed an opportunity lately to duck behind closed doors into an ex
ecutive session to discuss matters that perhaps belonged in the open.
Although the board may not be violating the letter of it, they are
certainly violating the spirit of the state's Open Meeting Law.
We encourage the County Board of Education to let the elec
torate know what they are doing, and to allow parents, teachers and
students know that their interests are being looked after.
We also encourage the voting public, and those interested in the
school system to attend the monthly board meetings.
Who knows, maybe they will leave the doors open.
A touch of irony
There was a touch of irony in the actions taken by the Hoke
County Commission during a December closed-door meeting.
In that private meeting the commission ordered an audit to be
conducted of the books of the financially troubled Hoke Am
bulance Service.
The county has been blindly paying the service more than $55,000
per year for the past three years with no true picture of how the
money was being spent.
Now, that it appears that service is having difficulty surviving,
even with this year's payment of more than $64,000, the commis
sion last month asked for the audit.
Although in December there were two new commissioners aboard
who did not attend the 1979 meeting, at least three of the present
members must have recalled Mable Riley's efforts then to have the
ambulance service audited on a regular basis.
Mrs. Riley made several motions in public meetings to require the
monitoring of the books.
All of those motions were never seconded and never voted on by
the rest of the commission.
Tke'm eu?4 - journal
Qcrtofaui]
RRESS
NATIONAL NEWSPAPER - association
ASSOCIATION
PabUskcd Every Thanday at Raeford. N.C. 2*376
119 W. FJwood A vm??
Sabacrlptioa Rata la Adruct
la Coaaty Per Year? Slt.N 6 Moat lu- MOO
Oat of Codaty Per Ycar-SI 2.00 t Months? M OO
LOUIS H. FOGLEMAN, JR Pabilafcer
PAUL DICKSON Editor
HENRY L. BLUE Prodactioa Oayu rl ? ?
WABRENN. JOHNSTON Newt Editor
BILL LINDAU Asocial* Editor
MBS. PAUL DICKSON Sodaty Editor
SAM C. MORRIS Coatrifeattaf Editor
ANN WEBB AdrcrtWaf Rcyrtaeatatl**
Sacaad Oam Piatm at Harford, N.C.
(USPS 3W-2M)
* (T SE&MS U*E 1fV& M0C6 i sort . -Ifte
U66S J. CCfif?. ?
Letters To The Editor
Ruined reputation
Dear Editor,
I, as an eighth grade member of
the Upchurch Jr. High School
Chorus, would like to express my
teelings on an article December 23
concerning us.
You have added comedy where
it is uncalled for.
You have also hurt the reputa
tion of the chorus and a very good
choral director.
I feel the seventh graders alone
should not be blamed for the pro
blems, because chorus is a joint ef
fort of both grades.
I feel like the cartoon (January
6) or "so-called" joke in the paper
was not needed. You have not
helped us at all to improve our
reputations. I, myself, do not see
why the article was needed.
Our chorus had lots of chances
to be known as a good chorus, all
of which you have ruined.
Shawn Brock
Raeford, N.C.
4-H, worth effort
Dear Editor:
Hoke County is privileged to
have such a dedicated and
knowledgeable extension agent to
lead the 4-H work in our county.
Alice Lancaster, our agent is
working very hard to get more
clubs organized in Hoke County
and more young people interested
in 4-H.
4-H has a lot to offer Hoke
County boys and girls between the
ages of 9 and 19.
It provides the opportunity for
them to develop in leadership,
character and citizenship.
These skills will be useful during
their growing up years and will be
carried with them into adulthood
when they will be the leaders of
Hoke County.
There is a little effort required of
the youngster's parents to make
4-H a success. The youngster's
need assistance with their projects
and encouragement to keep trying
when things may not be going
smoothly.
They also need to be reminded
of meetings and they need
transportation to and from
meetings.
As a parent of a Hoke County
4-H er, I am convinced that the
time I spend with 4-H work is well
worth the dividends, both to my
child and to me.
Sincerely,
Janet L. Hendrix
East explains Raeford
To the Editor:
I wish to express to you and your
readers several (there are many
more) of my objections to the re
cent S29 billion federal gas tax bill.
The new tax of five cents on a
gallon of gas is a regressive tax that
comes in a time of recession and is
added to the existing four-cent
federal tax and to the North
Carolina state gas tax which is
already one of the highest in the
nation.
That is not good economics nor
sound tax policy.
working
People of this country harder than
any other single group and that
alone made it worth resisting.
In addition, this gas tax of five
cents a gallon will have an adverse
effect in our rural areas. North
Carolina is a major agricultural
state, and thus this state will ex
perience a negative impact.
Senator James Exon (D-Neb )
stated in a letter to his colleagues
?nd on the Senate floor: "The
clear predictable effect of the cost
of this program will fall dispropor
tionately on the rural areas."
Why?
Among other reasons, this tax is
called a "user fee" but in fact it is
X! U$V?'"JOT one-fifth of
this tax will be diverted to mass
transit use in large cities of the
North and particularly the North
east.
As a practical matter then you
are taxing agricultural and rural
users of roads, bridges and
highways to subsidize mass transit
use in other parts of the country.
Call it what one will - that is not
fir.?5," feC' and the economic
impact is negative in agricultural
states.
Moreover, the formula used to
compute what North Carolina will
receive from its contribution to
Washington indicates North
Carolina will not receive back a
dollar for every dollar paid into the
trust fund.
Historically we have gotten back
74 cents on the dollar. We have
tied with Texas and Oklahoma for
last place as a "donor" state, and
under the new formula we will re
main a "donor" state receiving far
less in return than we will be con
tributing.
Furthermore, this tax will
adversely affect the trucking in
dustry of this nation and North
Carolina. Trucking is a major in
dustry in North Carolina (we are
the seventh largest trucking state in
America) and many trucking
businesses, particularly those of
middle and small size, will feel a
heavy brunt from this tax and add
ed license fees. In this time of a
weak economy it could force many
of them out of business. In good
conscience, a senator from North
Carolina, keeping in mind the
trucking interests of this state
could not support this tax and the
dramatically increased license fees
this legislation imposes.
Beyond burdening agricultural
and trucking interests so vital to
the economic well-being of North
Carolina, this tax also could have a
negative impact on tourism in our
state To increase the costs of driv
ing clearly may discourage tourist
KH* f? Critical to the economic
neaitn of our entire state
As regards the use' of the
filibuster to prevent passage of this
mi ^nator Russell B. Long
L ?h St?ted on the Senate floor
that the North Carolina senators
HiH TKVCry ri<?ht to do what they
aid. The people don't want faint
hearted senators. People want
senators who will fight for their
position."
Finally, it is worth noting that
the fruit of this lameduck session
ot Congress is basically two- fold
One, it raised the pay of
Slfwiri" of Congress (nearly
.y;,099 member in the case of
wh,Vh ,OUSe ?f Representatives)
which I vigorously opposed.
Secondly, with enactment of the
gas tax, it imposed a new tax on
inHW^ 8 of thc country,
and likewise I strongly opposed
that even to the point of filibuster
I felt enough was enough. I
make no apologies for my stand. I
think it was right that this tax be
resisted, and I trust that the people
this state, if they study this
measure carefully and fully. wiU
understand this was a carefully
Md principled decision,
and there was no alternative but to
stand and to resist.
Sincerely,
11 East
United States Senator
Misquoted
To the Editor:
In your article last week
(January 13) on the Raeford City
Council, you reported that I said
there was no better system in
reference to the method by which
the City of Raeford charges sewer
fees.
I asked the question if this was
the best system that the city could
use.
I do not know whether it is or
not.
If we are using the best method
to charge sewer fees, then everyone
should be treated equally under
this system.
If there is a better way to do it,
then we should find that system
and use it.
Sincerely,
Benny McLeod
Puppy Creek
Philosopher
Dear editor:
One of the problems Congress is
faced with dodging this year is the
MX Missile.
The problem is not where to get
the S30 billion it'd take to build
them. That's easy. You borrow it.
The problem isn't what part of
the country they should be located
in. That's easy, too. You locate
them in sparsley populated area,
on the sound principle that the
sparser the population the fewer
mad voters there are in the area to
object to them.
The real problem is where to put
them so the Russians can't get at
them with their missiles.
One group says bunch all the
missiles in steel-re-enforced con
crete in one spot deep
underground.
Another group says scatter them
out all around the country, if you
can find enough sparsely
populated, light-voting spots.
Another group says put them on
rails in underground tunnels and
keep moving them back and forth
so the Russians will never know
where to aim.
Another group just scratches its
head and says the problem needs
further study.
As 1 understand it, the purpose
of building the MX missiles is to
insure that they'll never be needed,
on the theory that Russia isn't go
ing to commit suicide by shooting
at us when we can shoot back with
devastating destruction. This is
based on the theory that Adolph
Hitler has no descendants rising to
power in Russia.
I have given the matter of where
to locate the missiles some pro
longed thought, and the only spot 1
can figure out is a place nobody
can discover. We should locate
them just around that corner
where politicians are always
economic recovery is.
Yours faithfully,
J. A.
CUR MIX...
Pm^W & ItSMt
LOCAL TAXES... Which states (|
and communities charge their
citizens the most taxes?
The figures for 1981, the latest
available show that among the
continental forty eight, the District
of Columbia charges their
residents most ~ an average of
$1,771. Wyoming is next at $1,704
and New York third, at $1,630.
Fourteen other states are expen
sive to live in, from this measure- ^
ment citizens being assessed, on "
average, more than $1100. These
are: California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Min
nesota, Montana, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and
Washington.
States where the local and state
tax bite are lowest?
The low eight (under $800) are: -
Alabama, Arkansas (lowest of all "
states $678, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Hampshire, South Carolina
and Tennessee.
States where these taxes raise the
? greatest sum of money are Califor
nia (29.8 billion), New York,
Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and
Michigan, in that order.
NEW REVENUE IDEA...lt has
been suggested that consideration -
be given by the 98th Congress to a ?
new idea for raising federal
revenue: proponents believe it
could be used to fund and stabilize
?he social security system.
If nqt used for bailing out the
red-ink social security system, the
new tax - which is what the pro
posal is ? would provide general
revenue funds for the Treasury,
which would also enable it to make ?
the retirement system solvent and ?
sound.
It is estimated by some
economists that as much as $1.5
trillion is in trust investments
managed by corporate fiduciaries,
which escape estate taxes under
present law.
While it is true that the trend (in
the Reagan Administration) is to
reduce taxes on family estates, an
idea the majority of Americans ^
support, it's also true that most ?
trust money today has been set up
by lawyers and tax experts simply
to avoid taxes.
TRUST FUNDS?. ..Huge trust
funds need not necessarily be ex
empt from estate taxes.
The opposition to estate taxes in
recent years arose from the fact
that family businesses, farms, etc.,
were often faced with such high _
estate taxes, survivors were forced *1
to sell to pay taxes.
But there would be scant opposi
tion from the public, one assumes,
for taxes in very large trusts well
able to afford paying estate taxes,
which for so long now have
escaped paying taxes via one
loophole after another.
Under present reform law by
1986 all estates of up to $600,000
value will be entirely exempt from ?
the federal taxation -- as per the re
cent Economic Recovery Act
reform law. There is an unlimited
marital deduction.
This means that no matter how
large, estates and trusts can pass to
a surviving spouse without incurr
ing a dollar in federal estate taxes.
One suspects the great majority
of Americans would accept
unlimited estate inheritances up to .*|
a million dollars or so, or
businesses, farms or home in
heritances valued even higher.
But the tremendous flight of
trusts by those smart enough to
utilize clever lawyers in recent
decades has amassed enormous
trust capital which would be taxed,
and which should be taxed.
AUTOS... Ford Motor's request
to delay paying $12.4 million in Q
damages and interest to a Califor
nia man injured in a 1970 car acci
dent pending an appeal which was
denied by the high court. Separate
ly, Ford paid $7.5 million to settle
a suit in which a California man
was awarded $127.8 million due to
a 1972 Pinto car accident, reports
The Wall Street Journal.