Decatur county (10)Anyone who has been around a while knows politicians who have said one thing in a campaign, but then when they got elected did quite another thing. But it is rare for a whole group of politicians, especially those claiming to belong to the Republican Party, which has built its “brand name” on NOT raising taxes, to do so en masse.

And to add insult to injury, the recent increase in the Iowa gas tax of ten cents per gallon was done in the name of safety – fixing defective and dangerous roads and bridges. One group of tax-increase proponents went so far as to run a television commercial suggesting our children and grandchildren were going to die or be horribly maimed in a school bus crashing through a deficient bridge.

But once the tax was rushed into place (no wait until July 1, the usual start date for new laws in Iowa – this went into effect on March 1) the lies were revealed – the first use of the new tax money is not going to be used to fix existing dangerous roads and bridges, but to expand Highway 20 to a four-lane:

Iowa transportation leaders want to direct most of the early proceeds from a 10-cent gas-tax increase to central and western Iowa, including fast tracking a Highway 20 project in the northwest part of the state.

The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) has also indicated they will use money from the newly increased tax to acquire land for future projects and to install guardrails. At least the latter might save a life, but it is a far cry from fixing existing defective and dangerous roads and bridges which was given as the justification for ramming this tax increase down the throats of Iowans, who were opposed to it by a very large margin:

A poll of Iowans conducted on January 6 and 7, 2015 for Iowans for Tax Relief found that more than three quarters of Iowans oppose a proposal to increase the gas tax ten cents a gallon (77.7% total oppose).

Two-thirds of Iowans (66.3%) agreed with this statement: “Iowa state government has enough money to fix and maintain our roads and bridges, and we need smarter spending and better priority-setting instead of raising taxes.”

The poll also found that Iowans want Legislators to look at alternatives to raising the gas tax before considering any tax increase; 63.7% want Legislators to look for other ways to improve Iowa roads and bridges. The poll conducted for Iowans for Tax Relief surveyed 400 registered voters from across the state.

“Rammed through” is putting it mildly. The Speaker of the House took steps that have not been taken since before the 1960s to ensure passage – on the day the gas tax was to be considered by the House Ways and Means Committee, he removed two members who were opposed and appointed himself and another “yes vote” to the committee in order for it to move to the floor on a 13-12 vote.

The truly unfortunate aspect of this is that higher gas taxes most significantly impact those who can least afford it: hardworking, low-income and middle-class workers trying to balance their budgets and raise their families. Many workers who lost their jobs in the “great recession” have had to take new positions that involve longer commutes, and this too bears heavily on these least able to afford it.

The transparency tragedy continues, because the IDOT has now indicated that two bridges in Decatur and Appanoose Counties will be moved from the 2019 projects list to the 2015 list as the first to be repaired with gas-tax increase money. Neither is listed as dangerous! Neither is on a highly traveled road.

If a house-to-house siding salesman were using these kinds of “bait-and-switch” tactics, the County Attorney or the Iowa Attorney General’s office would be looking into bringing charges.

Even the ardent champion of the gas tax increase in the Iowa House, Representative Josh Byrnes, has had to say, “Whoops” – that he is “disappointed” to learn that the City of Clinton intends to use funds from the increased tax to hire three new workers whose principal duties in the city’s streets department would be mowing, snow removal, and “occasionally . . . work on road projects.”  Byrnes said, “I just figured that everybody was going to be so appreciative that we’re getting more money in for the infrastructure, that (they would say), Wow. We are not going to abuse this.” (emphasis added)

Section Eight of Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Iowa says:

All motor vehicle registration fees and all licenses and excise taxes on motor vehicle fuel, except cost of administration, shall be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways exclusively within the state or for the payment of bonds issued or to be issued for the construction of such public highways and the payment of interest on such bonds.

Byrnes went on to state:

That’s what the critics were saying. That’s what my anti-[gas tax increase] people were saying, is that this money isn’t going to get used wisely, and it’s going to get misused. In a way, [the Clinton council’s action] disrespects the work that we did here, I think. And it makes the people that were against [the gas tax increase] look like they were right. (emphasis added)

Had the proponents of the gas-tax increase listed these uses of the money generated, it is highly unlikely the bill would have passed the Iowa General Assembly. We need more transparency, not more lies, in the Iowa political process!

Reprinted by permission from IOWA TRANSPARENCY NEWSLETTER, a monthly newsletter of Public Interest Institute.

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. If only authors of articles like this would do their homework. First, and foremost, there was certainly a focus on structurally deficient bridges during the 2015 debate, however, this debate has been ongoing for 12 years with no meaningful progress on addressing the funding shortfalls for transportation in Iowa. Proponents utilized marketing tools accomplish a goal that most legislatures agreed needed to be accomplished. The reality is that there was not much disagreement on the fact that Iowa’s infrastructure has grown significantly since the last tax increase in 1989, all while inflation and increase fuel efficiencies eroded the buying power of that source of revenues. The disagreement came down to funding sources, not need.

    Second, a report was issued in 2010 ( outlining the CRITICAL needs. First on the list (pg 12) is increased capacity on highly traveled roads, thus the inclusion of US 20 rights of way acquisition. I wonder if the author if this article read that report, which is the foundation on the needs and sources of potential funding, including the pros and cons of each funding source.

    Third, “most” of the additional funding isn’t being directed at US 20. Of the list of projects that were advertised as being funded by the gas tax increase, in fact consisted of pavement rehab. We don’t even know all of the future projects that will be funded through the gas tax increase to make such bold assumptions.

    What the author fails to recognize is that it takes months to design a bridge to the point of being advertised for bid. The gas tax increased increased in March. The IDOT offered projects that required little design that could have an immediate impact. The author is quick to assume that little of the future dollars will go to structurally deficient roads and bridges when, in fact, the author has no idea what projects will be included in future bid lettings.

    The author also criticizes the City of Clinton’s initial decision to utilize the additional funds for non-critical needs. We, as taxpayers, have a right to be disappointed with their decision. However, I think we also need to recognize the political pressure applied by the Governor’s office, IDOT and legislators to clarify the intent of the law to compel the City to reconsider their decision. Rather, the author prefers to taint and condemn the entire process by the actions of a single misguided community.

    As for the Decatur and Appanoose bridge jobs being accelerated, has the author contacted the IDOT Regional Director to determine why the projects were accelerated, or do they just assume IDOT is acting nefariously as fodder to further the author’s anti-tax and “I told you so” agenda?

      1. I get tired of opponents to the tax offering up misinformation to further their agenda and lacking any meaningful solutions as an alternative.

  2. Once again IA politicians have proven a dismal competence test when they are given large sums of money, saying one thing and doing another. We just never learn. When our Speaker/Gov. pulled their little stunt with removing 2 members of this committee, it stopped being an issue about the tax but the methods they used to push this thru. I am done with both parties and no more money will be going out of my pocket to support any campaign, going directly to the candidates of my choice.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Iowa House Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban

The Iowa House passed, SF 471, a 20-week abortion ban on a 55 to 42 party-line vote after having a floor debate that spanned two days.

Taking Viagra and Getting an Abortion Are Not the Same Thing

Shane Vander Hart: Iowa State Representative Mary Mascher (D-Iowa City) doesn’t acknowledge the difference between taking viagra and getting an abortion.

Iowa Third Congressional District Campaign Ad Comparison Shows Leonard Boswell is in Trouble

You can learn a lot about campaigns by the ads that they…

Brenna Findley Pleased That Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller Finally Accepts Her Debate Challenge

(Dexter, IA) – “After months of pressing AG Tom Miller to debate,…