The S.C. Supreme Court has again dealt a setback to the General Assembly's stabs at controlling local tax bills.

The high court has for the second time found a flaw with a state law that gives each county the choice to cap property reassessments for tax purposes. The court ruled the constitution requires that assessments be treated the same statewide, not county by county.

That new ruling now is coupled with an earlier one stating that a county cannot treat caps differently for residential and commercial properties.

And it comes after Gov. Mark Sanford wisely vetoed a different type of cap approved on the last day of the 2004 legislative session. Sanford said the proposed statewide 20 percent cap on reassessment increases for tax purposes would be unconstitutional because property tax must be based on fair market value. The cap would create a false value.

Now would be a good time for the General Assembly to quit meddling with the property tax. The issue is obviously not as simple as they wish it was. By now legislators should know that good sound bites don't necessarily make good public policy. They should worry about the taxes and fees the state controls -- and whether their actions may put new demands on local taxes. Ideally, local tax issues should be left with local governments. Property taxes go to cities, counties and local school districts, which are led by elected leaders. It is at the local level that the property tax rate is controlled.

If the current system of property taxation is to be changed, it will have to be done in a way that treats all property owners equally. The proposed caps simply switch the tax burden from those with high property values to those with less valuable property.

It is blatantly unfair, which is why it is unconstitutional.

If the current system is to change, it also must be done with the full picture of taxation in mind.

It may be true that too much is expected of the property tax. It may be that it is unfair to strap property owners with so much of the expense of public education, in addition to paying for the services expected of town and county governments. But if that is to change, it will have to be done in concert with the two other primary sources of government revenue: income tax and sales tax.

Continually poking around the edges for a quick-fix has not worked. Further constitutional challenges should be avoided.