Focus On I-912 GOP Opposition: Dan Swecker

Washington State Senator Dan Swecker (20th District) is the ranking minority member of the Transportation Committee and helped craft the $8.5 billion transportation bill.

As such, he is hugely against I-912, the initiative that looks to eliminate the main source of funding for the bill: the gas tax increase.

Yet, Dan Swecker is a Republican and his position is in opposition to the one his party has taken in support of the initiative. While his party is playing political games, Swecker is dealing with harsh realities.

Swecker has been one of the most vocal champions of the legislative package, passed with bipartisan support last spring, and he has gone on the record many times in support of the bill, and against I-912.

In April, before the bill was passed, Swecker participated in a live chat with the The Olympian. The majority of the chat addressed transportation issues and taxes. I've highlight some of his comments in bold, but want to retain the full context of Swecker's responses because they are so informative.

Moderator: Washington currently has the third higher U.S. gasoline prices, and the price per gallon is 40 cents higher than last year. Do you think taxpayers will respond with an initiative to roll back a gas tax increase?

Swecker: Well, there's two ways of looking at it. One way is that gas prices are higher and therefore it's hard to get additional revenue from a gas tax. Gas prices in my area have gone up 60 cents in the past six months and none of it has gone to roads. Our proposal is a modest increase over a long amount of time so people can plan purchases and trips, and I hope the gas tax impact will be minimal.

The second way to look at it is that in the last two weeks, prices have gone up 20 cents, with the gas prices bouncing around so much the increase would be imperceptible. But we still have to be responsible to our constituents.

Moderator: Would you consider an "excess profits tax" on oil companies as an alternative to higher gasoline taxes? This might work as a disincentive to oil companies increasing prices on Washington motorists.

Swecker: There was a source tax proposed on oil companies, and the problem I have with that is it spreads it way out past gasoline and the users of roads, and at that point anyone who uses petroleum products, or products with petroleum ingredients, plastics, would be penalized, and I would like to keep the source of the tax as close to the users as possible.

Robert, Rainier: Another 3-cents-a-gallon gas tax. Why is it the people have to be responsible for all the wasteful spending by our elected officials? The increasing cost of fuel already has raised the cost of consumer goods, food, etc. because of the cost of transportation being passed on. Now another 3 cents.

Swecker: The fortunate thing in our state is that gas taxes can only be used for highways and ferries, so it's specifically directed towards transportation infrastructure improvement. We've also been working on ways to hold the Department of Transportation accountable for the cost of projects, the locations of projects and biennium in which dollars were spent. We've also created transportation performance audit board which has scheduled performance audits over every action they take for the next six years.

We had the nickel tax two years ago and it had very specific restrictions on it, and the Department of Transportation has done a good job of conforming to the requirements of the Legislature. We have confidence going forward that the same kind of accountability will ensure the money is used for its intended purpose. Any other spending would be prohibited by the Constitution.

Kevin, Lacey: How come the Legislature always takes the easy way out? I guess one has to work for the state government to see how raising gas taxes at a time when gasoline prices are at an all time high makes sense. There are many other options other than raising the gas tax. Toll roads, fees for single drivers using the carpool lanes, and reallocating budget funds are a few. I realize these take more effort on your part, but that's what you are paid to do. The public just voted down a gas tax -- we don't want this and it's about time you realize who you work for.

Swecker: All of the options he suggests except the last are things currently either being implemented or being studied so we can implement them. As for the latter, we take money out of general fund and shift it into transport budget, but right now we have a $1 billion-plus deficit in the general fund and those resources are badly needed elsewhere.

Our goal is to not raise general taxes for those programs. Instead we want to concentrate any increase on the part of the state infrastructure that will most benefit the economy. The accompanying legislation has over 200 projects throughout the state. During the 16 years that it takes to complete those projects it's estimated that we will generate 35,000 to 40,000 new jobs, construction jobs, family wage jobs, $120,000,000 in sales tax revenue alone that will enhance the general fund budget. So my feeling is, if we're going to spend public money on anything, this is the exact right time to do it.

That doesn't even speak to the issue of needs. The first thing we addressed in the Legislature was the failing structures in the Seattle metro area, the Alaskan Way Viaduct and 520 Bridge. If either of those were to fail it would have a devastating effect on the economy. We decided to fund a little less than half of those projects and have the region come up with the rest. Even with that, the tax will only come up with a portion of those projects, so to pay for the rest of the projects around the state, this incremental tax will help us finish these projects. The most inefficient thing to do for transportation is to start a project and not finish it. Projects can get out-of-date very quickly and then you need to start over, so getting them done is paramount.

Moderator: Why should the entire state pay for King County megaprojects?

Swecker: About half of proposed gas tax revenue will come from the King County area. Not only will they pay their share of the gas tax but will add additional revenue to finish those projects, probably more than is projected by the gas tax, so we're getting double bang for our buck. This package does a great deal for the rest of the state, like the toll bridge over the Columbia River and the 385 in Spokane.

In our area we'll continue the widening of I-5 from the Rochester exits to the Mellen Street exit in Centralia. In order to do that we have to widen three overpasses and replace a major bridge so that project alone is over $100 million, but that's the area where we see most of the crashes and fatalities in the Centralia area. And that's a necessary step to move forward. This isn't unique to our area or King County -- one of the largest safety hazards we have is rollover accidents on two-lane roads. This project will provide guard rails on two-lane roads all over the state.

We also have 100 failing bridges around the state that are old and deteriorating. Many are in our earthquake sensitivity zone on the west side of the state, so any seismic activity can bring them down. So we want to upgrade them to withstand seismic activity as well as increased traffic. This is a huge bill that would benefit every part of the state.

Sheryl, Olympia: Is there ever any discussion regarding a minimal sales tax on food to generate revenue?

Swecker: There has not been. The reason is because a citizens' initiative took the sales tax on food off the table. I think that would be a punitive tax that would affect those least able to pay the most. The good thing about the gas tax is it's restricted by 18th amendment to (only pay for) highway infrastructure.

Gina, Olympia: Why all this taxing of items that affect low-income people? How about imposing a 5 percent tax on all adult tickets sold for college and professional sporting events? Consider the traffic jams these events cause and the extra city, county, and state personnel they use.

Swecker: You know, every kind of tax has been considered. I've been in the Legislature for 11 years and every possible tax has been proposed at one time or another. In fact we do tax those going to major sporting events, primarily to support the stadiums they take place in. But we've left no stone unturned. I am not in favor of general tax increases and I am in favor of government cost savings and we have done this over past four years with regard to transportation costs.

I was a member of the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee for four years and we've reduced costs and reduced litigation. It's been very successful and created new strategies for speeding up the permitting process and leaving litigation to the most needed areas. So the outcomes have sometimes been very ineffective and expensive. We are coming up with ideas to go elsewhere in the watershed, and it will have a much better outcome for the wildlife we are trying to protect, and that's only one outcome from the push to make transportation more efficient and accountable.

Phredd, Onalaska: What can be done about the high gas prices?

Swecker: That's so politically loaded. I think one thing to consider is to reduce the consumption of gas. Right now I have a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon. I could double the gas tax and get a car over the next 20 years that gets 30 miles to the gallon, and I would be money ahead even at today's gas prices. So fuel efficiency is a major issue. I am providing leadership for the push to improve fuel efficiency in the state. I think people will choose better options if the vehicles are available. I would personally like more options.

So using less gas is one option. I guess there's been talk of finding more sources outside the Mideast, like ANWR. That's not a total solution, but is part of it, and marrying that with new technologies like hybrids and electric cars, I think we can deal with the problem.

Lauri, Lacey: What's the solution to the I-5 snarl and how much will it cost?

Swecker: It's a huge problem and it just depends on where you're at. One option is to get cars and trucks off the highway. I proposed creating a new corridor for trucks up to Ii-90. I had committed funds to study that option, but talking to my colleagues there's two things to do first. One, we need a statewide study on rail, and we will do that this year, and two we have to look at a corridor on the other side of the mountain, because I think a lot of folks could cut miles off their commute and provide more economic development to the central part of the state. So I took the $1.5 million earmarked for my study and reallocated it to these two studies.

Rita, Lacey: I know you've been a leader in finding innovative ways to improve transforation in the state. Wouldn't it be more efficient if we could locate many kinds of linear transportation (highways, rail) and utilities (pipelines, power) along the same corridors?

Swecker: That was my original belief. We did have a commerce corridor study that did examine every one of those options -- pipelines, power lines, rail, passenger traffic -- on a new corridor that would run from Lewis County to the Canadian border, but looking at all those plans there was no critical mass that looked like one single corridor could address all those needs. Instead a truck corridor rose to the top. I think if we create an attractive corridor it will rise to the top, but unfortunately people in those industries don't plan ahead well enough to ensure they would use it wisely.

My goal was to bring resources from other providers of infrastructure to this corridor to pay for a major portion of it. I served on the transportation infrastructure alternatives committee that examined those options as they've been applied around the nation, and that really encouraged me to look at as many possibilities as I could. One impact of a new corridor would be environmental. There are certain parts of the state where the environmental impacts exceed the value of the corridor, so the area that has the most promise is from I-90 south. When you bring all that together, that one project (truck route) rose to the top.

Moderator: How much do you think fear is motivating your fellow lawmakers on today's scheduled vote on a transportation-tax package -- including a 15-cent gas-tax increase over 12 years? How do you think opponents will use the votes in the next round of campaign advertising, and what do you think of that kind of campaigning?

Swecker: Well it is a big consideration for my fellow legislators. It has been used in the past as a weapon against folks who have supported gas-tax increases -- the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats at using that tactic, which I personally detest. The current Democratic chairman of the Transportation Committee and I will sign a letter of appreciation and emphasize the importance of those who vote (to pass the gas tax) so they can share it with the public.

I've had discussions with people in the business community who have provided resources for some of the hit pieces on candidates and gotten assurances they won't employ that tactic in the future, but there are no guarantees. At some point people have to put politics aside and do what's right. I have no choice -- I have to do what's best for the people of Washington and let the chips fall where they may. There are a lot of people who do appreciate (the gas tax increase) and support it. It seems the more information people get about the need, the more likely they are to support it. But needless to say it's not a popular proposal.

Swecker still believes that an educated public will understand the need for this gas tax. And the need is huge:

(King County Journal) A three-term GOP predecessor, Dan Evans, says the gas tax is the rare tax that charges people only for what they directly use, in this case, the roads and ferries.

"To try to roll it back seems designed more for ratings on their talk show than anything else," he complains. "It is dangerous foolishness. The idea you can vote down all taxes and not have consequences is absurd, and dangerous in this case."

Haugen and the ranking Republican on her panel, Dan Swecker of Rochester, say the state contribution is crucial to meeting the estimated $32 billion worth of transportation needs. The Puget Sound region may contribute $10 billion in local revenue, but even with the last two state tax packages, the state still be have to turn to tolls and other strategies to build out and repair the system, Swecker says.

"It would be real frustrating to see it overturned," he says. "It would be a huge mistake to back away, to turn the clock back."

Back to a late August article in The Olympian:

State Sen. Dan Swecker, a Rochester Republican who helped craft the tax plan with majority Democrats, said recent polling shows opposition is less than 60 percent, which means the measure can be beat.

"If we can educate folks, we can chip away at it," Swecker said.

Also from The Olympian, via WashingtonPorts.org, with regards to the ramifications of I-912 passing:

Sen. Dan Swecker, an architect of the $8.5 billion plan passed by the Legislature this spring, said new vehicle weight fees would bring in $1 billion, but he wasn't sure how much more income the initiative would leave in taxes on diesel fuel.

Without the gasoline tax, major road safety improvements planned will not happen, Swecker said. Two-thirds of the weight fee income was dedicated to rail and transit projects, he said.

Much of the $8.5 billion package was marked for two projects: replacing the State Route 520 floating bridge near Seattle and the Alaskan Way Viaduct along the city's waterfront. Both roads could collapse in an earthquake.

Further to that issue The Kitsap Sun ran an article diving into what is likely to occur should I-912 pass:

"I think our fallback position is that everyone will be given their own taxing authority" and the state role will diminish, Haugen says. The Spokane and Vancouver regions are expected to be early examples.

Murray, Haugen and Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, say the "balkanization" of the transportation system is likely, leading to have and have-nots. They note talk of a 2006 initiative to require gas tax revenue to stay in the county where it's generated.

The state highway budget and the long-term transportation plan would be rewritten to reflect the lower revenue. Leaders say the mega-projects would continue to be a priority, since they are the most important for safety and keeping the state economy humming.

Left unsaid is that many of the projects outside the Puget Sound region would be delayed or abandoned for now.

"The sense of the Legislature will be to spend the money in areas that voted for the tax," Swecker predicts. "It won't be punishment so much as that's where the votes are."

The stakes are high. Well respected legislators from both sides of the aisle came to the conclusion that any transportation package that tried to start addressing $32 billion in transportation needs would have to include a gas tax increase. That's the cold harsh reality of the times we live in. Dan Swecker was a leader in that debate, and remains a leader in the ensuing debate going on to oppose the anti-tax initiative. Dan Swecker doesn't want to unnecessarily tax Washingtonians, yet our transportation infrastructure needs are so great that we simply do not have a choice after all other reasonable alternatives have been studied - and they have been studied.

As citizens of this great and diverse state, we also need to understand these issues, and take responsibility for contributing our part toward solving them. The gas tax is a user fee for the right to drive on the roads the state has to build and maintain. It is the fairest means of taxing people to raise funds needed to maintain and replace our aging transportation infrastructure, and the tax rate on a gallon of gas has been increasingly decreasing over the past decade, leaving a significant budgetary shortfall at a time when we have so many projects that require immediate attention.

We should be thankful we have legislators like Dan Swecker, regardless of party affiliation, who have stepped up and taken a stand for better and safer roads for Washington state, and against the selfish initiative that would deprive us of them.