People Over Potholes Pablum

I’m not on board with Govenror Otter’s new Transportation Plan. It’s not as bad as the last one, but I’m a bit of a hard case (to put it mildly) when it comes to tax increases. However, the Democrats’ “People over Potholes” meme is a tad absurd and one of my favorite Democrats in Idaho (my State Rep. Branden Durst) is sadly getting in on the mess, writing:

So what do we mean when we (Democrats in the Idaho Legislature) say, “people versus potholes”? Simply stated, we mean that in a time economic downturn it doesn’t make sense to us to raise taxes on already hurting Idahoans to build roads while cutting critical services like education and professional technical programs.

Of course, the two ideas are seperate concepts. The Idaho Department of Transportation Budget is seperate from the general fund. Durst tries to take down the argument by Senator John McGee in favor of the plan:

Oh, but Senate Transportation Committee Chairman John McGee says, “People AND Potholes” so maybe there isn’t any conflict. Well, lets consider his reasoning. According to Mcgee, potholes represents job creation. He is right it does, but not for Idahoans. You see, Idahoans aren’t required to get the contracts for road jobs and there is quite a bit of very recent precedent to suggest they won’t. I for one don’t want to advocate for a tax increase on my constituents so that we can employ people that aren’t going to help stimulate our economy.

A couple things. Anytime a project will create jobs, there’s no guarantee Idahoans will get them. True. But if people come from out of state, they’ll eat here and usually they’ll bed down somewhere. That all stimulates the economy.

But here’s the part of the equation I think people miss. If we really have poorly maintained roads, what does that mean? What happens when a bridge collapses. Who dies? Elk? If the roads aren’t safe, who suffers? People. If funds are necessary to fix and repair out state’s highways, roads, and bridges, then to repair the roads is in favor of people, because it’s people who drive through potholes. How great is it when you’re in economic straits to have something expensive break on your car because you hit a rough patch of roads.

Again, while I’m not 100% sold on the Governor’s plan, if we need this much revenue to take care of roads, the reason you would consider it is because unsafe roads mean injuries and death. The main reason is not because it could stimulate the economy.

Of course do we need that much revenue.? One state legislator declared:

Lets get a couple things out of the way from the outset. First, no one wants to pay more taxes. Second, maintenance is way past due.

The State legislator then called for a series of fee and tax increases to cover the shortfall in transportation. The legislator’s name? Branden Durst. That was ten months ago that he declared our roads in a horrible state of repair and now they’re not bad enough that we need to spend the money. In fact, in the last session he introduced a bill, H.B. 676 which would have placed a 2% Sales Tax on fuel. Remember, this was at a time that gas was $3.00 a gallon. The immediate effect of Durst’s the bill Durst support, if passed would have been a 6 cent a gallon increase in the price of gasoline, eventually becoming an 8 cent increase when gas was at its peak, and he’s sweating a 2 cent a gallon immediate increase this July?

How do we justify the change of position? Writes Durst regarding why we can’t have a gas tax increase now:

Let’s not miss something. Do roads need improving? Yes, yes, and yes. Unfortunately, as I stated above, without any certainties that Idahoans would be employed, this isn’t the BEST use of or money. Idahoans will see more benefit and for a longer period by building up the workforce (more on this later).

There is never any certainty that Idahoans will be employed. Last year, unemployment was around 4% at the start of the year, now it’s up to 6.6%. The argument that Idahoans are hurting right now is poignant, but Idahoans were hurting under $3.00 a gallon gas, and Durst proposed raising our taxes then. (Also sponsoring the bill was my other State Rep. Phylis King, and new House Assistant Minority Leader James Ruchti, who confronted Governor Otter about transportation after the Governor gave the State of the State address.)

The bottom line here seems to be that the Minority is putting politics before both people and potholes.

UPDATE:
Durst did not introduce the bill, but he did call for a small sales tax on fuel.