Turnpike shouldn’t become a cash cow

It’s not very often we use the word “agree” in the same sentence with “Carty Finkbeiner,” but this is one of those occasions.

The Toledo mayor is correct to oppose a plan to divert $20 million a year in turnpike revenue to pay for an economic stimulus plan proposed by Gov. Ted Strickland. The governor’s plan includes raising $970 million through the sale of bonds — and using turnpike revenue to help pay off the bonds, plus interest, through 2030.

In all, the plan would siphon some $420 million away from the turnpike.

Not that Strickland’s $1.6 billion stimulus plan doesn’t have some merit. The governor’s goal is to create 57,000 jobs by funding road, bridge and water projects, as well as invest in renewable energy technologies.

The infrastructure work likely is needed, although the economic benefit of the projects — as measured by bringing money into the state — is questionable. But renewable energy technologies increasingly are necessary to supplant our reliance on fossil fuels, plus the know-how could bring new dollars into Ohio.

The crux of the issue is how to fund the work. Raising taxes — that is, taking more money out of the pockets of Ohioans — would reduce the money residents have left to spend, thus being counter-productive for a plan intended to stimulate the state’s economy.

Borrowing against future tax revenue might not be much better — especially if the funds being borrowed are from a user fee, such as turnpike tolls. The state should think carefully about treating the turnpike as a cash cow; if current tolls are resulting in excess funds, perhaps rates should be lowered.

After all, the best way for a government to stimulate an economy is to reduce spending and taxation. That’s a view with which we often agree.