The News & Observer of Raleigh released poll results Monday that seemed to suggest public support for the governor’s proposed increase in sales and income taxes. Of course, the poll didn’t ask its question that way — hence my problem with it.

As you may know, Gov. Mike Easley has announced a state budget proposal for FY 2003-04 that would authorize $15 billion or so in General Fund spending in the first year — an increase of nearly $700 million, or around 4.7 percent. While much of his plan is unobjectionable, even praiseworthy (such as his proposed Medicaid savings and annual spending cap) the worst element is about $460 million in new revenues. The bulk of this would be generated by violating a promise made two years ago to raise the state’s sales tax only temporarily by half a penny and its top income tax rate to 8.25 percent. Together, extending these “temporary” taxes will raise $384 million next year and $473 million in FY 2004-05.

Another $58 million next year and $101 million in FY 2004-05 come from delaying the onset of two scheduled tax cuts: a change in the personal exemption within the income tax to address the “marriage penalty” and an increase in the per-child tax credit. Finally, localities would be stuck with another $23 million raid on promise tax reimbursements, much of which would likely be passed along to taxpayers in the form of property-tax hikes (as has happened this year).

It was a great idea to poll voters about their respose to this proposal. Unfortunately, the N&O chose language that did not give respondents an accurate picture of what the governor was proposing. Nor did the newspaper’s pollster give respondents a choice of responses to the state’s ongoing fiscal woes — that is, either higher taxes or lower spending. If you ask a bad question, you get a bad answer.

Here’s what the newspaper asked: “Gov. Mike Easley says that North Carolina cannot afford to reduce tax this year as scheduled. Do you favor or oppose the governor’s plan to delay for two years a half-cent reduction in the state’s sales tax, from 4.5 to 4 cents?” The result was that 55 percent favored the proposal, 34 percent were opposed, and 11 percent were not sure.

The question’s flaws are evident. First, the legislature is not being asked to delayed a scheduled sales-tax cut. It is being asked to reimpose a tax that it previously promised would expire on June 30. The legislation would raise the state’s tax burden compared with current law. Second, respondents were given no idea how much this would cost them in higher taxes ($347 million). Third, they were not given the choice of either reimposing the temporary tax or cutting government spending, which would likely have significantly altered the outcome.

For example, in the John Locke Foundation’s Agenda 2002 poll last year, we asked: “Which policy for balancing the state budget is closest to your view: the state should cut government spending and avoid tax increases; the state should raise taxes sufficiently to preserve government programs; or the state should mix smaller budget cuts and some tax increases?” A majority, 51 percent, chose the no-tax-hike option, with 37 percent opting for the mix and only 7 percent (probably the percentage of our sample from Chapel Hill and other college towns) picking the tax-only choice.

A second N&O question read: “Do you favor or oppose the governor’s plan to delay for two years reductions in the state’s income tax, including lowering the top tax bracket for the state’s wealthiest taxpayers and changes in the state child tax credit and personal exemptions?” A plurality, 48 percent, favored this while 41 percent opposed it.

In addition to the problems noted above, this question also contained inaccurate information. The temporary income tax-hikes would be extended until January 1, 2006 under the Easley plan — or two and one-half years. A small point, but it could have affected a few respondents.

The newspaper poll also found support for a cigarette tax hike — a bad idea but one that often generates support given that smokers are a relative minority — and found little support for extending the state sales tax to include services, which may have been skewed a bit against the proposed change.

Points for effort, but demerits for execution.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.