Idaho Hostage Crisis, Day Three

By Sharon Fisher, 4-22-09

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter’s hard-line stance of vetoing appropriations bills until he gets the transportation funding he says the state needs continued today, amid evidence it may be having the opposite of the desired effect, with even legislators who had supported his failed transportation bills now backing off.

Meanwhile, both legislators and Otter’s office are saying that they’re doing what their constituents want—and the legislators have a better claim.

Otter’s office is pointing out that it conducted seven town hall meetings around the state last year, with the overwhelming majority of response indicating that citizens want safe and reliable roads, and uses this as justification for his vetoing 33 appropriations bills this week in order to encourage the Legislature to pass bills increasing the gas tax, which thus far the House, at least, has refused to do.

The problem—aside from the fact that it’s unlikely that there’d be many citizens in favor of dangerous, unreliable roads—is that Otter’s justification conflates several separate issues.

1. Does the Idaho Transportation Department need more money for maintenance? The agency itself, not unexpectedly—what agency will say it doesn’t need more money?—has been saying this for some time, and Otter began supporting it at least last year. Doubting the objectivity of the agency, the Legislature funded last year a $500,000 study (which actually ended up costing $450,000) of ITD by the Office of Performance Evaluations.

So, yes, while one can quibble about details such as the fact that Otter wants to use funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), commonly referred to as the federal stimulus package, for constructing new roads (which will add to the maintenance burden), and is not specifying funding for maintaining old ones, it’s safe to say that ITD needs more money for maintenance. Otter is on safe ground there.

2. Is a gas tax the best way to provide this funding? Here Otter is on more shaky ground. His office points to last year’s town hall meetings—which attracted about 100 people each—where citizens said they wanted safe and relaible roads. But first of all, “wanting safe and reliable roads” is not the same thing as “wanting an increase in the gasoline tax to pay for them.” Even if it did, that was last year, when the economy hadn’t gone south as much as it has since then. Legislators—whose job, after all, is to represent their districts—say they have been hearing from their constituents that they do not want an increase in the gas tax at this time, and their information is much more current; some legislators are even surveying their constituents this week to check.

Moreover, is a gas tax really the best way to go? There have been dozens of ideas floated around the Statehouse for the past couple of years about increasing revenue, ranging from increasing the prices truckers pay because they put more wear and tear on the roads, to decreasing the prices truckers pay to encourage them to register in Idaho and bring the state that revenue, as well as all sorts of other fees and increases. The Boise town hall meeting—added at the last minute last year after Treasure Valley citizens complained about being left out of the loop (though Otter’s office said it had always been planned, just not put on the schedule)—mentioned a number of possible ways to increase funding for roads, including methods that neighboring states have used.

3. Is this the best way to go about it? Here’s where we get to the real crux of the issue. Let’s say that maintenance funds are needed this year. Let’s say that a gas tax is the only possible way to provide it. Isn’t there a better way for the Governor to work with the Legislature other than the executive equivalent of holding his breath til he turns blue?

Legislators, like most people, don’t want to be pushed around, especially when they have credible evidence that their constituents don’t want a gas tax. There must be some way that legislators would be willing to give on this issue in return for something else they want. It doesn’t appear that Otter is making much of an effort to find out.

It can happen. On HB96, the most recent gas tax vote, the number of Democrats voting for the bill went from 4 to 11 from a previous gas tax bill, HB135, reportedly because the Senate restored some education funding that had been cut.

Surely there’s something that some House Republicans want as well. And while constituents may be saying they don’t want a gas tax, surely it’d be a lot easier to persuade them of its importance—pointing out that, after all, gas will still be less expensive than it was last summer—with an executive and legislative branch that are working together.

As it is, Otter’s vetoing technique isn’t working. He isn’t getting more votes—he’s losing them. HB135, the two-cent fuel tax bill, had the support of 28 Republicans, while HB96—the House bill amended in the Senate to include a three-cent gas tax increase for two years, which happened after the first round of vetoes—had the support of only 4 of them.

While the Senate currently is choosing not to attempt to override Otter’s vetoes, that may change. When the Senate President attempted to send the vetoed bills back to the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee today, Minority Leader Senator Kate Kelly, D-Boise, objected, preferring instead to attempt to override them. And while JFAC Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron, R-Rupert—who is getting the brunt of the fallout by now having to redo the 25 appropriations bills Otter vetoed yesterday, on top of the eight he vetoed the day before—is being gracious about it thus far, at some point he and the rest of the JFAC members may start digging in their heels.