I was quite amused by The Sun's efforts to set the record straight concerning the rain tax ("The 'rain tax' sham," April 17). After reading your editorial, one can only conclude that any sensible individual interested in curbing pollution must be for the rain tax and anybody against the tax must favor pollution. Really? The vast majority of your readers, if not all, favor reducing pollution. My hunch, however, is that the majority of readers do not support the rain tax and for good and just concerns.
The real sham here is trying to convince the public that a tax will ever meaningfully reduce pollution. The use of the newly-raised funds is ambiguous — it covers monitoring, inspecting, permitting oversight, public education and grants to non-profits — not strict pollution reduction targets and measures to attain them with real penalties for having fallen short. It is simply a large, expensive bureaucratic initiative wrapped around a noble cause.
Would the editorial board like to make a friendly wager whether the rain tax will actually ever have a demonstrable impact on reducing pollution resulting from storm water? I sincerely hope I would lose such a bet but believe it to be a sure way to offset my rain tax bill.
Dan Hudson, SparksCopyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun