I’ve received hundreds of phone calls, emails and letters from Jasper County residents on the gas tax bill. By a margin of 7 to 1, you oppose a dramatic and immediate hike to gas tax.
Many of you, whether in opposition or support, suggested alternative funding, such as utilizing the state’s $1 billion surplus. You were clear, with a huge list of road repairs, we should not be building new roads until we fix up the ones we have. You told me we must focus on rural roads and bridges and place a higher priority on repairing roads in towns like Newton, Baxter, Colfax, Kellogg and Prairie City rather than new, expensive and unnecessary projects in cities such as Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities.
Most of you told me to remember gas prices might be low now, but could be high tomorrow. I heard you loud and clear — we must find ways to meet our infrastructure needs without raising taxes and putting a disproportionate burden on middle-class Iowans, particularly commuters.
However, legislative leadership and the governor are intent on putting those of us in the middle class in a bind by dramatically and immediately hiking taxes to support an antiquated and ineffective road funding formula.
Raising the gas tax by 10 cents all at once — nearly a 50 percent increase — is too much for working families trying to pay bills and put food on the table. The increase is also too soon because it takes effect immediately. It’s a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the middle-class, particularly working-families and seniors on fixed-incomes. An immediate increase of 10 cents also will negatively impact Main Street, small business owners and employees. They will have no time to adjust their budgets to account for higher transportation costs.
We are closer than ever to a dramatic and immediate tax hike because of political games played by the majority party leaders. Here’s how it happened this week.
All bills concerning taxes must pass through the Ways and Means committee before coming to the House Floor for a vote. The majority party leadership's goal was to pass the bill through the full house as early as next Tuesday and put the bill on the governor's desk. You would start paying at the pump as soon as he signed it. But this week brought them an unexpected problem. A majority of Ways and Means committee members expressed serious concerns about the tax hike. Several members, from their own party refused to follow orders to vote yes. It was doubtful the tax hike would pass the Ways and Means committee as late as Thursday afternoon.
So what did majority party leadership do? Reassess their plan? Open discussion on alternative funding? Invite rank-and-file legislators from both parties to the bargaining table? Commit to only repairing current roads in rural areas, not new unneeded projects in Des Moines?
No, they didn’t take any of these logical, diplomatic, and ethical steps. Instead, in an unprecedented move, majority leaders punished two of their members who refused to follow orders to vote ‘yes’ by removing them from the Ways and Means committee. They were quickly replaced, and the tax hike passed by one vote within hours.
Political games like this are very frustrating. They make honest discussion, fair-consideration of solutions, and bi-partisan cooperation difficult in the legislature.
I urge majority leaders in both chambers and both parties, as well as the governor, to slow down, reassess this situation, and listen to Iowans who offer new, reasonable solutions to an old problem, proper funding of infrastructure needs. Political games get us nowhere.
In closing, as a strong proponent for renewable fuels and fuel efficiency efforts, I'm particularly disappointed with this proposal.
This bill falls short in our efforts to expand the use of renewable energy.
While the incentives for ethanol remain unchanged, the bill should have a stronger biodiesel incentive that will ultimately create good jobs here in Iowa, protect Jasper County’s bio-diesel jobs and add value to soybean crops and livestock-by-products for Iowa farmers. I feel strongly, as cars become more fuel efficient and use other forms of energy, we need a long-term funding model to repair our infrastructure that will be sustainable for the next 50 years. This bill is not a reasonable solution.