In the endorsement statement, IFBF President Craig Lang (also recently elevated as an Iowa Regent at the request of Gov. Terry Branstad) said that an increase “is the fairest way to fund” road repairs “because it charges people who actually use the roads whether they live in Iowa or are from out-of-state.”

Here’s the statement:

With rural roads making up nearly 90,000 miles of the state’s 114,000-mile road system, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) applauds the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission recommendation for an additional 8 to 10 cents per gallon fuel tax.

“Our roads and bridges have been severely impacted over the years by flooding and neglect, negatively impacting all of Iowa, but especially our rural communities, businesses and farms. Our members believe it’s imperative to repair the roads and bridges to help rural Iowa thrive,” said Craig Lang, IFBF president. “We believe that an increase in the fuel tax is the fairest way to fund those repairs because it charges people who actually use the roads whether they live in Iowa or are from out of state.”

Lang notes that IFBF delegates in 2008 passed policy calling for the fuel tax increase to repair the state’s roads and bridges.

The tax increase recommendation was made to the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) this week after several listening sessions around the state. The recommendations will be submitted to the Iowa Legislature by the IDOT by the end of the year. The IDOT reports that Iowa needs an additional $215 million per year to meet critical roadway needs and the recommended increase will generate $184 million to $230 million per year.

The Advisory Commission was established by Branstad last spring and held a series of seven public input meetings during August and September. Iowa Code requires a complete review by the Iowa Department of Transportation of the current revenue levels of Iowa’s road use tax fund and to determine if the revenues will meet the construction and maintenance needs of Iowa’s roads every five years. The appointed commission members were to provide input into final recommendation and to collaborate on public education.

While the 12-member Commission notes the hike may be troublesome for Iowa families already mired in an economic downturn, they believe the estimated $280 million could be put to good use for Iowa roads and bridges.

The gas tax in Iowa has been stagnant since 1989 at 22 cents per gallon. One cent of the tax goes to underground storage tank clean up and the remainder is used for road work.

The Commission is also recommending an increase in new vehicle registration fees from 5 to 6 percent of the purchase price.

David Rosenberg explains:

But 60% of that headline consumer spending print came from food and energy — everything else rose a tepid 0.2%. In fact, spending on durables or ‘big ticket’ items rose by less than 0.1% in its weakest showing in four months. Almost all the growth was in non-durables, which surged 1.8% and most of that were groceries and gasoline — the two ‘G’s. Services eked an advance of less than 0.2%, held back by housing/utilities.

In other words, most of the increase in consumer spending in January is driven by increasing spending on fuel and food, which are virtually the only consumer items increasing in cost. People aren’t necessarily buying that much more food or gas; they’re just spending more on it, because demand for those categories remains relatively stable regardless of cost.

Adding to the good news for consumers, Rosenberg notes that Americans are increasingly reliant on government transfers (which includes unemployment) to fund their meager purchases. Government transfers rose .7 percent between December and January and more than 12 percent between January 2009 and January 2010. Unemployment, welfare and Social Security payments are buying the increasingly expensive food and gas on which Americans rely, even as Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) keeps fighting to prevent long-term unemployed Americans from continuing to collect unemployment benefits.

Climate expert Dan Weiss of the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress Action Fund wants to know the same thing TWI’s John Dougherty asked in his piece today: How can McCain say he’s such a friend of solar energy when his legislative votes show otherwise?

The nonpartisan group 1Sky, a coalition promoting federal action on climate change, wants to ask why the words “energy efficiency” have been absent from energy rhetoric, and what Obama and McCain would do to achieve energy conservation and create green jobs.

1Sky raises a good point with its question. While both candidates talk about alternative energy, clean coal and green jobs, neither mentions conservation goals, which largely conflict with industrial interests.

350.org is a nonpartisan organization with goals similar to 1Sky’s. Its co-coordinator, Jamie Henn, wants to ask if either Obama or McCain, as president, would attend the U.N. climate meetings scheduled in December in Poland. It’s an interesting question because while both candidates support legislative action on climate change, Obama’s plan seeks to meet greenhouse gas levels set by the U.N., while McCain’s doesn’t.

Finally, president of the nonpartisan Natural Resources and Defense Council, Frances Beinecke, wants to ask what Obama and McCain would do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by cars and trucks. This not only factors into the efficiency question but also raises questions about how to increase the number of electric cars on the road.

Will anyone step up tonight at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. to ask these questions?