Transportation Showdown

Governor Otter gets his proverbial day in court tomorrow. The court of public opinion in the Idaho House of Representatives. The Guv is still pushing hard to raise taxes to fund transportation and tomorrow will be a showdown.

While I don't know for certain as to what will happen, I will say that no matter what happens tomorrow, this won't be the last draw. In reality, I feel for the Guv on this one. He is between a rock and a hard place. Mechanically, to get support from Group X he must use Solution A. By choosing Solution A, he has lost support of Group Y. If he were to go with Solution B, he'd likely lose support of Group X. The problem in this particular situation is that there are multiple groups and solutions.

The question is what solution gives us the right mix of groups to get something done. That seems to be as elusive as a good paying job in today's economy. While I personally believe that,
"now is no time to be raising taxes on Idaho families," I also believe that Idahoans need to invest in its transportation infrastructure. The problem I have with the Guv's proposal is it lacks creativity and long-term thinking. Rather than try to do something innovative, the Guv has relied on a 1950s solution to fund a 21st century problem.

The Guv's proposal is essentially to increase the gas use tax and registration fees. Let's look at the gas use tax more closely. First, everyone, including the Guv and his staff, will concede that there are diminishing returns with the gas tax. As vehicles get more and more fuel efficient or use other sources of energy, the gas tax becomes less and less useful.

What isn't being well publicized with this tax is that truckers, who I think even they would admit cause a significant amount of wear and tear to our roads, get refunds for any gas they don't use in Idaho that they buy from here. In other words, if a trucker fills up in Mountain Home and goes down to Nevada, he gets to be reimbursed for any amount of tax on the fuel he has remaining. If he has 15 gallons remaining, he gets the tax he paid on that 15 gallons back.

More importantly, the fuel use tax can only be used for roads. That may seem a bit self-explanatory, but it is something I have a real fundamental problem with. You see, the Guv wants to make it more expensive to drive a vehicle, but his tax doesn't provide citizens a natural alternative mode of transportation. This means that you can't, for all intents and purposes, opt-out.

Now, I still don't think its a good idea to be raising taxes, but if that's what we must do, shouldn't we also provide an alternative? I think so. Okay so you may be asking yourself, "Fine, do you have any better ideas?" Oh, I am so glad you asked!!! Please allow me to elaborate.

First, if it were up to me, I'd scrap the registration fees the way it is being proposed with exception to the commercial and farm vehicles. With personal cars, rather than base the registration rate on year of the car, I would make it by weight. The heavier your car, the more damage you do to the road, the more you pay. I used to think it was a good idea to set the rate by value of the vehicle. Perhaps there is a way to give those that are especially low income a waiver or reduced rate. That way you aren't pricing poor people with "old clunkers" out of the market. I wouldn't change the rate for truckers, but don't worry, they aren't going to get off Scott-free.

Next, I'd also scrap the fuel use tax. In its place, I'd use a tax on fuel. The difference between the two is that tax on fuel is a tax on the transaction. That means that truckers don't get to apply for a refund and the State gets more revenue. The fact is that truckers can choose not to register in Idaho, but they can't choose not to drive in Idaho. I would increase the standard rate by five cents. This first five cents would be distributed in the traditional manner 2/3 to ITD, 1/3 to the local highway district. I would include a second five cents and dedicate it to a regional transit authority (like Valley Regional Transit). In the absence of an RTA, I would use the regular distribution model. By doing so, we would be providing an alternative to driving and offer a solution for tomorrow instead of a solution for yesterday.

Do I expect my idea to ever be given consideration? No. But don't say I didn't come to the transportation gun-fight showdown without a gun.

A guide to writing policy through the Idaho Constitution

If members of the House Majority Leadership were to write a book, it should be titled, "A Guide to Writing Policy Through the Idaho Constitution."

Today, in the House Revenue Taxation Committee, majority members pushed through a Constitutional Amendment (HJR4) regarding local-option taxing. HJR4 would modify the State Constitution to dictate the parameters of future policy regarding sales and use tax proposals . It clarifies that local-option taxing must occur in a traditional jurisdiction (county or city). It also clarifies that any local-option tax must pass by a 2/3 vote. Finally, it mandates that enabling legislation must still be passed by the Legislature prior to any local-option tax is proposed.

This made me think of three questions:

1. Is this the proper role of the Constitution?
2. What is the value of this proposal?
3. What impact would this have on future proposals?

Admittedly, the first question is much more philosophical and less practical, but I believe it deserves to be addressed. When our State Constitution was written, I am unsure if the intention was for the document to be regularly rewritten as if it were an extent ion of the Idaho Code. While it is true that bar for amending the constitutional is set higher than other policy, given our current imbalance in the Legislature this not nearly as difficult as it probably should be. This is relevant because by placing something in the State Constitution, it makes it nearly impossible to reverse in future years. I do not believe that it is appropriate to use the State Constitution to write policy that is better suited for the Idaho Code.

The value of the HJR4 is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. In my view, and the view of Bose Metro Chamber of Commerce (amongst many others), there is no value to the proposal. This legislation has been written in order to thwart local communities and their right to self determination by setting the bar so high that it will be unachievable. This is wrong plain and simple.

The actual impact of this legislation is not completely known, but there are some pretty likely consequences. If this amendment were to pass, it would likely cripple the ability of Treasure Valley residents from being able to address its transportation concerns from a regional perspective. This is because it would mandate that the vote for local-option would be voted on at the jurisdiction level, in this case the county. The regional transportation authority (RTA), in the Treasure Valley know as Valley Regional Transit (VRT) transcends the county boundaries. Rather thank taking one vote and reaching the threshold in the RTA, each county would be considered separately. This just doesn't make sense.

HJR4 is headed to the House floor, but I will vocally oppose it. I will urge other lawmakers to do the same.

2008 Legislative Preview

In preparation of the 2008 Legislative Session, I’ve put together the following legislative preview. In this preview you will find the issues that I plan to work on as well as other major issues facing the Idaho Legislature.

Legislation I will be sponsoring:
Early Childhood Education – As an extension of HCR18 from last year’s session, I will be working with a bipartisan coalition to move forward on establishing a Quality Rating System for Idaho child care settings. This is a crucial step in improving early learning and safety for children throughout Idaho. By passing this legislation, parents will be better equipped with more information to choose the right child care provider for them and their children.

Permanent Absentee Ballots – In conjunction with the Idaho Association of County Recorders and Clerks (affiliate of the Idaho Association of Counties) and bipartisan co-sponsors, I will continue to work on allowing Idaho voters to opt-in to getting permanent absentee ballots. By opting-in, Idaho voters would be able request that in all future elections (or until they move or become ineligible to vote) they receive an absentee ballot in all elections. This will cut bureaucracy, improve access to voting (especially for elderly), and increase efficiencies in our democracy.

Credit Report Freeze – In an attempt to protect consumers I will be joining a bipartisan group of legislators seeking to give consumers the option to freeze their credit reports in the event of identity theft.

Major issues for the legislature:
Alternative Teacher Compensation – Both Superintendent Luna and the Idaho Education Association will present legislation that would change the way public school teachers in Idaho are compensated. The cost of doing so and the potential impacts upon the teaching profession and children’s education will be paramount.

Local Option Tax/Road Funding – Once again the Coalition for Regional Public Transportation will be bringing legislation that will permit local communities to tax themselves for public transportation. This year’s bill, however, will also include a provision which would permit taxpayers to choose to fund road projects as well. By bundling road and mass transit into this bill, the hope is to expand the number stakeholders and improve the chances of seeing this bill finally pass the House Revenue and Taxation Committee and subsequently the legislature.

Water – While admittedly my understanding of the water debate is limited to a rudimentary issue of supply and demand (and senior versus junior water rights), this is issue will once again rise to the surface. Stay tuned.

Personal Property Tax – Once again the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) will attempt to eliminate the personal property tax. Personal property tax is a tax paid by businesses for property used in the production or operation of the business. This proposal comes with a hefty price tag. The fundamental question facing this proposal is whether or not legislators want to give businesses another tax break at the expense of the individual taxpayers. A secondary proposal may be offered limiting the scope of the elimination with the goal of targeting small businesses.

Sales Tax on Groceries – There will be myriad of proposals again this session looking to either eliminate the sales tax on groceries and/or increase the grocery tax credit.

Property Tax – Governor Otter will likely propose a change to Idaho’s law with regard to the assessment of property taxes. A constitutional amendment may be necessary.

Growth - Impact fees and other tools to limit or change the way growth is managed are top priorities in the Treasure Valley and other parts of the State. Keep an eye on this one.

Health Insurance - With healthcare costs skyrocketing and more families without insurance, lets hope the legislature steps up and addresses this issue. I will be sure to support any responsible proposal that helps with the cost of healthcare.

Closed Primaries - As with the lawsuit filed last year, it is highly likely that the legislature will hear another bill that would close primaries. More on this later in the session.

There are many other big issues, but in the interest of time, I’ll stop there for now. Stay tuned to this blog for more information and updates throughout the session! As always, if you have questions or comments, please let me know.

Ironic, isn't it (H246)

Ironic, isn't it? When the House Revenue and Taxation Committee rejected H246, better known as the bill to allow for local option taxes for mass transit, it actually made a decision counter intuitive to everything that it claimed to be fighting for. Let me explain.

The so-called "Tax Hawks" on the Committee regularly say they want to do virtually anything they can to lower the taxes their constituents (or major corporate donors) pay. So given the fact that local option taxes would reduce the amount of transportation dollars needed by the Treasure Valley (assuming it were to pass), thus resulting in less tax burden, its curious at a minimum that they would reject this proposal. You see, as access to mass transit increases, then the need to continuing expanding lanes on I-84 and other road infrastructure decreases. This isn't just some liberal-hippie construct, its a fact of life that has played itself out throughout the country (even in our neighboring state of Utah who have embraced mass transit in major way).

The next irony is the anti-local control component. Throughout campaigns we hear how local control is important and how elected officials will give the power back to the people. These words even come out of the mouths of the members of the Committee, although they fail repeatedly to live that out. All I am saying is that if you really believe in local control then legislate like it.

Finally, there is the issue of air quality. Now, I know you are probably scratching your head on how this could possibly be an irony. Well, it follows similar logic as the first example. The folks that opposed the local option tax, also tend to really love their corporate donors. Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't said that virtually everyone benefits from corporate donation. Although I never really have, most legislators do. So how do corporate donors and air quality tie together? Simple. If the Treasure Valley continues its streak of poor air quality it will go in to what the EPA calls non-attainment, which could be avoided if we had better access to mass transit. Non-attainment will result in the Feds coming down hard and implementing a multitude of very restrictive environmental policies. These policies are sure to cramp everyone's style and pocketbooks, including the corporate donors. As a result, the margins will get smaller and they will have less money to donate to reelect the obstructionist that claimed to be legislating in their interests. Ironic, isn't it?