SierraScape October - November 2004
Back to Table of Contents

by Ginger Harris

Coming in November to a voting booth near you-the "highway robbery amendment."

Proponents promise it will allocate "vehicle taxes and fees paid by highway users" exclusively to "constructing and maintaining the state highway system" without impacting the state's fiscal situation. In fact, Amendment 3 would increase funding for highways-not by raising gas taxes or by adding a new tax on heavy trucks, but by taking money away from other state services.

Amendment 3 will restrict MoDOT from reimbursing other state agencies for transportation-related services they provide. An exception is the Highway Patrol, whose money will continue to flow-as it should, since traffic law enforcement is essential to highway safety. A partial exception is the Revenue Department, which MoDoT currently reimburses for collecting motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle sales taxes, issuing driver and vehicle licenses, and enforcing "drunk driving" laws. Amendment 3's arbitrary limit on reimbursement from MoDoT to the Revenue Department will cover only about 30 percent of the Revenue Department's highway-related functions. That leaves a $41 million hole to fill ($46 million by FY09), and that amount will have to be made up out of General Revenue.

What the ballot language doesn't spell out is that Amendment 3 will also grab $141 million per year of sales tax money by FY09 out of General Revenue and will use it to finance some $1.3 billion in bonds to build new roads. This could add to the miles of state roads needing maintenance.

By FY09 Missouri's General Revenue will be reduced by about $187 million per year. The result will either be cutbacks in state services like environmental protection, education, health, mental health, indigent and senior services, courts, public safety, public transit, etc., or a tax increase will be needed to make up the difference.

Proponents of Highways-above-all-else seem to think that because they already got half the state sales tax on motor vehicles through a constitutional amendment in 1979, they should now get it all. They allege that half of the sales tax on vehicles is currently being diverted from highways. Nothing could be further from the truth. A sales tax is a tax on the sale of goods or personal property-whether a computer or a Hummer-and it's general revenue. (We don't divert the sales tax on big-screen TVs to equipping sports bars, and we shouldn't expect to divert the sales tax on vehicles to building roads.) If any diversion has occurred, it was when half of the sales tax on vehicles was taken away from the general revenue fund in 1979.

If Missouri needs more money to build roads, we should raise our state's fuel taxes (especially on diesel fuel for trucks) to the same level as surrounding states. Or we might change our constitution to allow tolls on certain highway segments.

Instead, led by the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, the Heavy Constructors Association of Kansas City, and other construction interests, proponents spent over $400,000 to have petitions circulated using the something-for-nothing pitch "fix our roads with no tax increase."

Proponents are now trying to sell Amendment 3 with the simplistic message "end the diversions, fix our roads, no tax increase." Nothing in the ballot language mentions the sales tax, or reducing the amount of general revenue for other state services. In fact, the ballot language-approved by the Secretary of State-specifically says, "The constitutional amendment has a zero net fiscal impact." So much for truth in advertising.

Ginger Harris will briefly describe and answer questions about this ballot issue at the Sierra Club General Meeting on Thursday, October 28.