Gas-pump-Indiana-USAWell, it appears that GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker is now carrying the torch for Iowans for Tax Relief by stating clearly, “no increase in the gas tax” in his recent post to the Iowa GOP Web Site while making clear the Iowa GOP’s solution to the problem is, well…actually, Mr. Spiker never gets around to telling us Iowa GOP’s solution to the funding shortfall.  Just like the Iowans for Tax Relief didn’t bother to tell us their solutions in their recent email blast to their member condemning the proposed gas tax increase being discussed in the Iowa House and Senate transportation committees.

Mr. Spiker uses as his basis for opposition multiple references to polls showing “overwhelming” opposition to a gas tax increase.  That’s nice, but what does that have to do with solving the funding shortfall for roads and bridges?  As for a poll on taxes, when is the last time you heard of any poll where those being questioned said they wanted higher taxes (unless of course the poor were polled about the rich paying their “fair share”)?  I’ve long used polling data as support for my positions, and probably would if the polling data skewed to my side on this issue.  But, in the end, what polling data results often show is a polling base of people misinformed, or not at all informed, on the issue.  For example, we see polling data overwhelmingly in support of increased gun control, in spite of the fact that the measures being proposed will do nothing to reduce gun violence.  We’ve also been presented with polling data in the past showing strong support for Obamacare.  More recently, we’ve seen strong support in Iowa for expanding Medicaid.  Will the Iowa GOP come out in support of increased gun control, Obamacare and expansion of Medicaid to follow the polling results, or will they recognize that those polled are making emotional decisions and that they aren’t very well informed on the implications if their opinions are implemented as law?  I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the polling results will have no affect on their positions.  So why should a poll on the proposed gas tax increase have anything to do with justifying their position?  The gas tax is a case in point on uniformed voters.  In order to address this, how about a poll that states clearly that funding for Iowa roads and bridges is deficient by $215 million dollars?  Then give them the three options that are currently on the table and ask them:

What is your preferred option for solving the current $215 million funding shortfall for roads and bridges in Iowa?

1. Use general fund surpluses for a one year, temporary fix. (you might want to mention that the legislature could actually give taxpayers a refund of $369 out of the current budget surplus instead)

2. Ignore the problem and do nothing. (Might want to mention that this “kicking the can down the road” approach will eventually cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more in future maintenance costs)

3. Raise the gas tax by $.10 over the next three years. (That’s an increase of $60-90 per vehicle per year by year three, depending upon whose figures you use)

I’ve repeatedly told people that raising the gas tax is the worst option of the three, except for the other two options.  Truth be told, raising the gas tax sucks, but doing nothing, or nipping at the edges of the problem with general fund surpluses are far, far worse options because they’re not long term fixes.  If the Iowa GOP supports the other two options, then they’re no better than the U.S. Senate Democrats and President Obama in kicking the can down the road to be solved by future legislatures.  Do we really need to wait for a bridge to collapse with a bus full of kids on it to get the “Sandy Hook” affect on the need to solve a problem?

I recently attended “It’s Time for a Dime”, a grassroots movement made up of supporters of the gas tax that held their event at the Capitol on February 27th to educate our legislators on the need for the increase.  In my conversations with legislators, the consistent theme I got from them, and others I heard speak on the topic, is that there is absolutely a funding problem.  What isn’t yet established is where the GOP will land on solving that problem.  One legislator was very blunt in his assessment that, as a member of the GOP, he’s afraid of the backlash if he votes for a gas tax increase.  And he’s right, because the media reported that Chairman Spiker sent a letter to House Transportation Committee Chair, Josh Byrnes, demanding that Rep. Byrnes withdraw his support for a gas tax increase.  As Rep. Byrnes astutely pointed out, it’s his responsibility to work for his constituents, who include many supporters of the gas tax increase.

In a press conference yesterday held by the “It’s Time for a Dime” event coordinators, Governor Branstad spoke and stated he would support an increase in the gas tax if he finally gets his property tax reform bill passed.  While I feel there’s plenty of merit for the gas tax increase without property tax reform, Governor Branstad has been pushing for property tax reform for the third consecutive legislative session and knows he can get additional support for reform from groups who are supporting the gas tax increase by tying the two together.  And I did get some feedback yesterday that offering property tax reductions could provide sufficient cover for the GOP legislators to justify support of the gas tax increase.

Mr. Spiker further defends his opposition to the gas tax by stating that AAA is stating gas prices are at an all time high and that the Iowa GOP platform clearly states its opposition to increasing gas taxes.  As for gas prices, would Mr. Spiker support an increase in the gas tax if gas prices were say, $1 dollar less than all time highs?  Probably not.  I don’t think Mr. Spiker would support the gas tax whether Iowa was running a budget deficit or if gas was $2/gallon.  With their current, not tax increases regardless of merit in doing so, the Iowa GOP risks being define as being the party that opposes taxes, while surrendering their mantle as the party of solutions to very challenging problems.

So, Chairman Spiker, as the leader of Iowa GOP, I challenge you to take a firm stand and either come up with a viable, long term solution to the funding shortfall that Iowa GOP can stand behind, or publicly state that there is no problem and justify that position.  Until then, you’ll have demonstrated the same absence of leadership that we’ve seen in the White House since January, 2009.

**Editorial Disclaimer** this is Scott Bailey’s opinion and doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of Caffeinated Thoughts, its editor and other contributors.

Photo Credit: Derek Jensen (PD-US)

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. I’d just like to point out Scott, that A.J. was reiterating the party’s platform on the matter. It’s not really his job as party chair to come up with specific policy solutions to a funding issue. I know I’ve come up with several ideas which you’ve dismissed so it just seems to me anyway that this is the only solution you have in mind. I’d love to hear other solutions that perhaps you’d embrace.

    1. If Ashley’s job as party chair is to not deal in policy then don’t send elected officials advice on how to be legislators. Thank you for your comments Scott as they are spot on!

  2. Perhaps if the gov’t (state and federal) spent the money they already recieve in a more responsible manner then they would not have a shortfall and if they did, at some point, come up short we might be more inclined to voluntarily hand over more of our hard earned money.

    1. I’ve been screaming for years, why aren’t contractors held responsible for their shabby work. If you’re going to force me to pay taxes I expect the very best work available for that money stolen.

  3. Well first and foremost perhaps the Iowa DOT should cut back their $2.3 billion 4 year expansion of Iowa highways while the other roads they are responsible for need repair. That would be the most sensible thing. And as funding is available start talking about expanding the highway system.

  4. We don’t need a gas tax increase at this time. Before asking for more taxpayer money the govt needs to review how our money is being spent. Our county road system is built on a model from the 1800s. The counties need to look at what roads and bridges can be eliminated. It may be an inconvenience for some but can continue to afford to replace bridges over drainage ditches so one farmer can drive over it 4 times a year? Do we need 99 county secondary road departments and the duplication of management and certain equipment? Why don’t farmers have to pay any gas tax or sales tax on the large equipment, especially manure equipment, that does more damage to a road than my car ever will? Address issues like this first and then we can talk increase.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Iowa Students, Remember to Dream Big

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley: For the students across Iowa heading to class in the new school year, remember to dream big.

Reynolds Administration Gives Criteria for Online Learning

Gov. Kim Reynolds’ administration said schools can go primarily online for 14 days if they have ten percent absenteeism or county has a positivity rate over 20 percent.

Video: Fifth Night of Protests in Des Moines Ends on a Peaceful Note

After hundreds of protesters rallied in front of Iowa’s Governor’s mansion and then marched around the State Capitol the night ended peacefully.

King: Why Iowa 4th Congressional District Republicans Should Vote for Me

U.S. Rep. Steve King: “We will sprint through the fire together, re-elect President Trump, take back the House from Nancy Pelosi, and Make America Great Again … Again!”