The last time the Legislature raised the gasoline tax, back in 1999, the hole in the state’s Highway Fund needed a nickel per gallon to fill. Although the gas tax is based on the concept of the user fee – all who use Maine roads, residents or visitors, pay for their upkeep – lawmakers limited the liability of all users to just 3 cents and dumped the rest on Maine residents only through an increase in vehicle registration fees.

It was a confusing bit of legislating and enough of an embarrassment that lawmakers immediately began lining up to solemnly swear that a better way to pay for road and bridge work must be found. It took three years, and a lot of swearing, but lawmakers found it.

The gas-tax increase just passed by this Legislature is better in several ways. The penny amount of the increase is not specified and it does not take effect until July 2003, guaranteeing that the initial jolt of 2.6 cents will be an issue in November 2002 only among voters who worry about things that won’t occur for another eight months. Finally, the increases will be automatic and in perpetuity, sparing future Legislatures the pain of making difficult decisions.

Back in ’99, in the aftermath of that gas tax blooper, the word out of Augusta was that difficult decisions were going to be made. The Department of Transportation was preparing a report on other ways to fund highway projects, the Maine Economic Growth Council also was studying the issue, entire economic-development conferences were devoted to the subject. The problems were identified: Increases in fuel efficiency were making it difficult for per-gallon tax revenues to keep up with increasing demands for road repairs and improvements; Maine’s small population and relatively large area put it at a distinct disadvantage for federal funding; the low weight limit on I-95 forced big rigs onto secondary roads, causing unnecessary wear and tear.

The potential solutions, though contentious,

at least were presented – a larger share of General Fund revenues going to roads and bridges, perhaps a portion of vehicle sales taxes, perhaps a regular, orderly program of bonding highway projects, certainly fixing the federal funding and I-95 issues.

But why get all contentious over difficult choices when the same revenue source found so deficient can be continued and expanded without taxpayers noticing until it’s too late? Why make roads and bridges compete with other necessary obligations of state government – like education, for example – when they can get automatic cost-of-living increases? Why make the DOT explain itself to every Legislature at budget time, as do all other state agencies? Why not, for that matter, tie every tax to inflation so every agency can avoid these unpleasant confrontations?

There is a bright side to this extraordinary bad bit of legislating – every two years, the DOT is required to submit a bill calling for an end to this inflation-adjusted tax increase as a way to fund highway projects. Provided, of course, that a better way is found.