Columbus Dispatch: State lawmakers would set a dangerous precedent by linking any increase in

Columbus Dispatch: State lawmakers would set a dangerous precedent by linking any increase in Ohio’s motor vehicle fuel tax to revisions in other taxes.

Ohioans should be alarmed by suggestions from both Republican and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly that any vote to raise the gas tax should be tied to income tax rates or deductions or loophole-closing or any other tax policies. That would be a recipe for mischief, both now and in the future.

Gov. Mike DeWine has proposed an 18-cent increase in the gasoline tax, which would boost it to 46 cents. It would be the first increase since 2005. He also wants to index future increases to inflation, beginning July 1, 2020.

The increase is essential, DeWine says, just to maintain current conditions on Ohio’s roads, bridges and highways. His assessment was shaped by a study, conducted over the past two years by highway and trucking interests, concluding that one-third of Ohio’s major urban roads and highways are in poor or mediocre condition, and 1 in 14 bridges is deficient.

The tax hike would represent “a status quo approach,” DeWine said. “But it’s going to keep us in the game. It’s going to save lives and it’s going to allow Ohio to continue to grow.”

Transportation Director Jack Marchbanks told legislators the state road maintenance and construction system “is facing an impending crisis.” Without a substantial tax hike, Marchbanks said, his department “is in jeopardy of being unable to fulfill its mission.”

The warnings drew immediate skepticism from Senate President Larry Obhof, R-Medina. “I’m not sure it is in trouble,” he said. But if a gas tax hike is needed, Obhof went on, it should be offset by a reduction in the state income tax. “I think we should do an income tax cut anyway.”

Obhof’s comments prompted Democrats to jump into the linkage game, urging tax relief for low- and middle-income Ohioans and the closing of tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

State Rep. Jack Cera, D-Bellaire, targeted the business-tax deduction for owners of pass-through entities, allowing them to pay no tax on up to $250,000 in income. “If they want our votes for the gas tax, we’d want to see something done with that loophole, at least to direct it to job creation, equipment purchases,” Cera said. “Right now it’s pretty much a tax giveaway.”

Obhof’s and Cera’s comments are especially alarming because usually they are level-headed lawmakers with an understanding of Ohio’s budgetary structure and fiscal history. They also typically take a methodical, studious approach to policymaking.

When it comes to Ohio’s budget process and tax policy, some things are basic. First and foremost, there is not a single budget bill each biennium. There is a main operating appropriations bill, a separate transportation appropriations bill and still other budget bills for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and the Industrial Commission.

KEEP TRANSPORTATION BUDGET SEPARATE

For many decades, and for good reason, the transportation budget has been considered separate and apart from the main operating budget. In 1947, Ohioans approved a state constitutional amendment to guarantee that motor vehicle and license taxes would be reserved for roads, highways and bridges.

Ever since, lawmakers have honored the complete separation of the main operating budget and the transportation budget, including the tax rates and policies specific to each. Obhof’s suggestion that DeWine’s proposed gas-tax issue could be kicked into the operating budget and considered as part of a broader tax package could not be more imprudent.

There is no more nexus between the operating and transportation budgets than there is between the operating and workers’ compensation budgets. Why not weigh workers’ compensation taxes paid by businesses against the number of individual income-tax brackets? Why not offset higher gasoline taxes with lower sales taxes?

Once lawmakers begin making tax trade-offs between budgets that have nothing to do with each other, political point-scoring trumps rational budgeting. That’s a Pandora’s box that should never be opened.

DeWine’s gas-tax proposal should be evaluated solely on its own merits. The 18-cent hike is either justified or not.

Lawmakers have a duty to thoroughly evaluate the methodology behind the proposal, form their own conclusions on the severity of the problem and decide how to address it within the transportation budget.

Fortunately, that is the clear-headed conclusion reached by House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford. “The Senate can do whatever the Senate wants, but as far as the House is concerned, we’ve got a longstanding history that the motor fuel tax constitutionally pays for roads and bridges and that happens in the transportation budget.”

There is no shortage of objective data on Ohio’s transportation infrastructure, the revenues that support it and comparative data for all 50 states. DeWine’s assessment of Ohio’s situation can be weighed against statistics kept by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments and others. Legislators have no excuse for failing to cast an informed vote.

It’s instructive that in the past five years, 28 states have increased their motor fuel taxes. Ohio has not done so for 14 years. Given the importance of transportation to Ohio’s economic fortunes, lawmakers are obligated to make some hard decisions, not to seek political cover.