Yes to conservation; no to tax

Quad-City Times

---------------

We agree with all but three words of the 2,151-word Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Act.

The act was passed in the 2008 and 2010 Iowa state legislative sessions, which authorized a statewide constitutional amendment referendum that Iowans will vote on Nov. 2.

We agree with the act's conclusion that Iowa's waterways are endangered and need protection.

We agree that recreational development is critical for the state.

We admire the emphasis on flood-plain reclamation, a tactic used successfully in Davenport.

We agree that dedicated funding is necessary to achieve these goals.

Then we get to those three words: Sales. Tax. Increase.

Iowans are beings asked to vote Nov. 2 on a referendum that would earmark 0.375 percent of any future state sales tax increase to these important purposes.

So a “yes” vote won't raise a nickel until the sales tax is hiked for some other purpose. Perhaps it will be road funding. Maybe more education funding. Who knows?

If successful, this constitutional change would give lawmakers the political cover and motivation to actively seek a sales tax hike, knowing that Iowans support reasons for 0.375 percent of the increase.

Amending the constitution seems an arduous way to encourage a future sales tax hike.

Iowa should not, and need not go there.

As far as those other 2,148 words in the Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Act? State legislators can implement every single one of them, and a tax increase if they wish the usual way: muster the votes.

We would argue against using a sales tax hike to fund it. And we'd encourage a phased-in approach that reallocates existing funds to pay for the conservation, restoration and recreational projects envisioned in the bill.

Just keep Iowa's constitution out of it.